Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 13th March.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL(by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 13th March.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 13th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Binoculars and Telescopes (Mercantile Marine)

Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make arrangements for officers of the Mercantile Marine to be allowed to retain the prism binoculars and telescopes issued to them for their use during the war.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Arrangements are being made to enable Merchant Navy officers to purchase binoculars which become surplus to naval requirements. These arrangements do not apply to telescopes, of which there are no surplus stocks.

Air Arm (Flying Pay)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what amount of

flying pay is paid to members of the Naval Air Arm; and how this compares with the equivalent allowance in the R.A.F.

Mr. Alexander: As the answer to this Question is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Officers of the General Duties Branch of the Royal Air Force do not receive flying pay as a separate allowance, but are paid inclusive rates of full pay. Naval officer pilots and observers receive flying pay at rates which, when added to full pay, give approximately the equivalent of the full pay of R.A.F. general duties branch officers of relative rank. The rates of Naval flying pay are 3s. 4d. a day for midshipmen and acting sublieutenants, 5s. od. a day for lieutenants and lieutenant-commanders, and 3s.od. a day for commanders.

There is no separate flying pay for rating aircrews in the Royal Navy. All airman air crew personnel and naval rating pilots and observers receive consolidated rates of pay. The basic rates payable to P.O. and C.P.O. pilots and observers in the Naval Air Arm are identical with those payable to sergeant and flight-sergeant pilots and navigators in the R.A.F., the rates being 13s. 6d. a day for petty officers and sergeants, and 16s. od. a day for chief petty officers and flight-sergeants. Telegraphist air gunners in the Royal Navy receive a combined qualification and flying pay in addition to substantive pay at rates varying from 3s. 3d. to 4s. 3d. a day, according to qualification. There is no comparable rank in the R.A.F.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as I know, the overall pay of the Fleet Air Arm is on the average between is. and 6d. less per day than the equivalent in the Royal Air Force; and would he agree that it is to the advantage of the Fleet Air Arm to cut out this difference as soon as possible?

Mr. Alexander: There is no actual flying pay in the Royal Air Force, but I think that, broadly speaking, when the special flying pay of the Fleet Air Arm and the ordinary pay is added together.


there is not very much difference. But if I find that there are any particular inequalities I will look into them.

Londonderry Base

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in consequence of lack of work at Londonderry naval base, skilled and unskilled workmen are being paid off; and whether, in view of the shortage of labour at British shipyards, he will take steps to provide sufficient work to keep these men fully employed at Londonderry.

Mr. Alexander: It is true that shipyard workmen are being discharged at Londonderry owing to decreasing Admiralty repair work there. This is unavoidable, partly due to the reduction of Naval establishments to a peace-time footing, and also to the fact that the major firm engaged on ship repairs in that port have expressed their intention of ceasing work at Londonderry and re-transferring their workers to Belfast. The facilities at Londonderry are not suitable for major repairs. This limits the amount of repair work which can be assigned to that port. I regret that it will not be possible for the Admiralty to provide further work when the vessels new in hand have been completed.

Sir R. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible to carry out that work by local firms who have done some contracting work, instead of a firm which is employing its resources at Belfast?

Mr. Alexander: I suppose that when the original dock establishment is free it is open to the prewar firms working there to do what work they can there. I shall have a look into it.

Sir R. Ross: If it is found possible to carry out this work with local firms will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?

Mr. Alexander: I will look into it.

Motor Fishing Vessels

Mr. J. J. Robertson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in the disposal of. admiralty-built M.F.V.s, he will give first opportunity of purchase to fishermen whose vessels have been lost on Admiralty service during the war.

Mr. Alexander: The allocation of Admiralty-built M.F.V.'s released to; the

fishing industry is decided by my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who are in the best position to judge the relative priority of applications to purchase.

Mr. Maclay: What steps has the right hon. Gentleman's Department taken to make details of these vessels available to fishermen who may wish to purchase them now?

Mr. Alexander: That is rather a detailed question. I could supply the hon. Member with particulars if he would drop me a line. There certainly have been very adequate steps taken.

Gratuities

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware' that men who have been released from the Royal Navy under the group scheme are not receiving their gratuities because the Savings Bank Division of the Post Office complain that the Naval accounts section has not provided them with the schedule containing the released men's accounts; and why ex-personnel of the Royal Navy are at a disadvantage compared with the other Services in this respect.

Mr. Alexander: The world-wide dispersal of the Naval Forces makes it difficult to ensure that Service documents reach the dispersal centres at the proper time. The. vast majority of Naval personnel released receive. their gratuities without delay, but there are bound to be a number of cases in which some delay is unavoidable. Considerable improvement has been effected recently, and measures to secure further improvement are being actively pursued.

Transferred Vessels(Dominion and Foreign Governments)

Sir R. Ross: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what warships have been transferred to what foreign, Dominion or "Imperial Governments during the past three years.

Mr. Alexander: As the answer to this Question can best be given in tabular form, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

Battleship
Light Fleet Carrier.
Escort Carrier
Crusiers
Destroyers
Submarines
Frigates
Corvettes
Landing Ship (Headquarters).
Landing Craft (Tank).
Minesweepers
Trawlers (A/SM/S)
Motor Minesweepers
Motor Torpedo Boats (incl M.G.B.'s).
Motor Launches.
Harbour Defence Motor Launches.
Boom Vessels


BRITISH COMMON WEALTH OF NATIONS


Australia
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
l
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Canada
…
…
…
…
—
1
—
2
8
—
9
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


India
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


 New Zealand
…
…
…
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Union of South Africa
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


FOREIGN COUNTRIES


Belgium
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
—


China
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Denmark
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1
—
—
—
—
10
—
—
—
—


France
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
3
6
— 
—
—
—
—
22
8
4
21
—


Greece
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
5
4
—
5
—
—
—
—
—
—
8
8
—


Iceland
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
— 


Italy
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
15
17
—
—
—
—


Netherlands
…
…
…
—
—
1
—
4
2
1
1
—
10
8
—
13
8
—
—
—


Norway
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
4
2
—
2
—
—
5
4
2
10
—
—
—


Poland
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
6
—
—
—


Portugal
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
—
1


Turkey
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
2
1
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
8
8
2


U.S.S,R.
…
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
9
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—


Yugoslavia
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Sir R. Ross: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total displacement tonnage of warships transferred by the British Navy to foreign and Dominion or Imperial Governments during the past three years; and what price has been received for them.

Mr. Alexander: A total displacement tonnage of 269,064 has been transferred to foreign, Dominion or Imperial Governments since 1st January, 1943. For those which have been sold, a total sum of£3,014,206 will be paid.

Sir R. Ross: Have we not got very little for this very large quantity of tonnage that has been transferred?

Mr. Alexander: What I have referred to applies only to that part of the transfers which have been sold. We have made some gifts within the Commonwealth, and we have also loaned ships to foreign Powers.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that in view of the existence of the atom bomb battleships are worthless?

Mr. Alexander: I do not agree with the argument.

Transferred Personnel

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers and ratings have been transferred from the submarine branch to general ser vices since VJ-Day; and whether this has resulted in any loss of pay.

Mr. Alexander: Two hundred and twenty-one officers and 1,210 ratings have been transferred from submarine to general service since VJ-Day. These transfers result from the reduction in the Navy's submarine commitments and necessarily involve the loss of Submarine Allowance or Spare Crew Allowance.

Patent Rights Claim

Mr. McKie: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is now in a position to make a further statement regarding the claim for patent rights of Mr. Buchanan Reith.

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. Mr. Reith, through his solicitors, has expressed dissatisfaction with the payment offered ex gratia in settlement of his claims. I cannot at present say anything more on the subject.

Mr. McKie: Is not the First Lord aware that the ex gratia payment offered to this Gentleman is, in the opinion of Mr. Reith, totally inadequate, and that Mr. Reith's brother, a distinguished former Cabinet Minister and a Member of this House, is fairly of the opinion that he is entitled to a much more substantial payment than that offered by the First Lord?

Mr. Alexander: I could not base the Department's judgment of the value of services simply on the opinion of a-brother, however distinguished. I must leave it to the technical advisers to deal with and, if need be, to the legal channels.

Mr. McKie: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Alexander: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman proposes to raise it. This matter is very largely sub judice.

Mr. McKie: Would it be in Order for me to raise this matter?

Mr. Speaker: That remains to be seen.

Demobilisation

Mr. Driberg: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that 76 ratings serving in H.M.S. "Birmingham" will become entitled to Class A release before 29th April; that this ship is to sail on a cruise in foreign waters lasting 2 to 2½ months on or about 7th March; that of the 76 ratings concerned some 10 are to be allowed to leave the ship before 7th March because there are, in addition to their Class A entitlement, special compassionate grounds for their release; and if, as there is no operational necessity for the retention of these men, he will take steps to prevent this breach of the age-plus-service principle by causing all those concerned to be drafted from the ship before 7th March and held in the United Kingdom for release within the dates proper to their groups.

Mr. Alexander: The hon. Member has been misinformed with regard to the duration of the cruise. It is expected that H.M.S. "Birmingham "will have returned to this country well before 29th April. The last part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Driberg: There will be no men then, can we take it, who will be delayed beyond their proper time?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think so

Warrant Officers (Promotion)

Commander Pursey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of candidates for each branch of

A—EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 


Qualified Professionally
Qualified Educationally
Qualified in Both
Estimated Promotions


GUNNERS (T)


82
[...]
5
36


Note This is the nun bet of candidates on the roster who have qualified in Seamanship; of these 28 are doing t he Educational and Technical Course at the moment and 35 have already failed once


GUNNERS


89
—
—
29


Note: This is the number of candidates on the roster qualified in Seamajnship; of these 36 are now on the Educational and Technical'; Course. 24 have already failed once.


BOATS WAINS


54
[...]
[...]
[...]


Note: An Educational Course for these candidates will begin this month.


BOATSWAINS (A/S)


B.—ENGINEERS.


Promotions to Warrant Engineer and Warrant Mechanician are made twice yearly in April and October from candidates who secure the best results in a professional examination. In the last examination, 108 candidates qualified for consideration Of these 13 were promoted in October 1945 (12 warrant engineers and one warrant mechanician) and it is estimated that a further 13 will be promoted in April, 1946. Promotions in October, 1946 will depend upon the results of the current examination which will not be known until the Summer.


My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that in all cases the estimated promotions must be regarded as tentative only, since they necessarily depend on decisions about the size of the postwar Navy which have yet to be taken.

Those candidates in the executive table who have not yet undergone their various courses to qualify for promotion will, of course, be given their opportunity as soon as they become available.

Commander Pursey: Is it not a fact that conditions of service are such that insufficient candidates are coming forward to be warrant officers? Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the matter with the object of making that rank more attractive?

Mr. Alexander: I think the whole question of the warrant officer position is under review at the present moment.

Ratings (Commissions)

Commander Pursey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state

the executive and engineer warrant officers who are qualified for promotion; the numbers under training; and the number of promotions which his Department intend to make in 1946.

Mr. Alexander: The reply to this Question can best be given in tabular form. I will, therefore, with permission, cir-circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

the numbers of rating candidates selected for preliminary training for commissioned rank under the sub-lieutenant scheme, in the executive and engine-room branches, in the years 1943, 1944 and 1945; the numbers awarded commissions; and the reasons why the other candidates were not promoted.

Mr. Alexander: As the answer to this Question contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Selected for Training.
Awarded Commissions.


Executive Branch


1943 
43 
29 


1944
66
25


1945
68
22


Engineering Branch


1943 
—
9


1944
—
6


1945
—
8

I regret that the numbers accepted for training in the Engineering Branch during these three years are not readily available. The number of failures after passing the Selection Board is very small, however.

There are several reasons for failure to obtain commissions. In the majority of cases, it is due to not attaining the required educational or technical standard. During the promotion course in other cases it becomes apparent that candidates are not developing the required personal qualities of leadership. Some candidates do not wish to continue and withdraw at their own request, while there is a small wastage from sickness and other causes.

Officers' Pay

Commander Noble: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is expected to announce the new rates of pay, etc., for officers.

Mr. Alexander: Very shortly, Sir.

Cadets

Commander Pursey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of naval cadets he intends to enter this year, under the 13 and 17 to 18 age schemes, respectively; and the number of commissions he expects to award to ratings, in the executive and engineering branches.

Mr. Alexander: The present intention is to enter 135 cadets at.13 years of age, and about 100 at 17–18 years of age. The subject of the second part of the Question is at present under review. I am not, therefore, in a position to give the numbers.

Commander Pursey: Is it not high time that there was a far greater measure of democratisation in the Navy?

Mr. Alexander: Democratisation is a matter which can be expressed in two or three different ways. It can be expressed

by broadening the educational field of entry within our community, or it can be expressed by not having any entrants to these Services except through the ranks. All that is under review.

Family Allowances

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what allowance is payable to officers and men of sea-going ships who wish to live ashore with their families during refit periods in dockyard.

Mr. Alexander: As this answer is long,-I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICAL Report.

Following is the statement:

Married naval ratings and Royal Marine other ranks serving in shore establishments in the United Kingdom for whom proper accommodation is available, and whose families live within reasonable distance, are given the option of:

(a)receiving provision allowance (which is at present at the rate of 3s. 50. a day) and making their own arrangements for all meals, or
(b) being victualled in the establishment and receiving one 72 hours' ration card every 14 days.

The foregoing arrangements are not automatically applicable abroad, but may be put into operation either partially or wholly at the discretion of commanders-in-chief, who are being authorised to exercise a similar discretion in the case of men of sea-going ships, whether at home or abroad.

In the case of married officers, where the period of refit is estimated at the outset not to exceed three months, marriage allowance at schedule A rates and lodging allowance are paid. Where the refit is expected to last more than three months, lodging allowance is not payable, but the officer receives marriage allowance at schedule B rates, which are in general is. a day higher than schedule A rates. In either case, provision allowance is payable in lieu of Service victualling.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVORCE APPLICATIONS (POOR PERSONS)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that 16,000 divorce applications are awaiting attention at the


office of the Poor Persons Committee of the Law Society; that many of them will not be heard for many months unless additional staff can be made available; and what steps he proposes to take to meet this situation.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I regret that my answer must be somewhat long. As stated in reply to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) on 14th November last, the regrettable delays in the handling of Service divorce cases, which are solely due to scarcity of accommodation and shortage of staff, have been under, constant consideration by my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. Arrangements have now been made, with the approval of the Government, for expanding the Services Divorce Department of the Law Society to four times its present capacity, and for enabling the work to be decentralised by setting up branch offices in the provinces. For this purpose, the Government have authorised the allocation of accommodation, labour and materials as a matter of priority. But it must be realised that staffing difficulties, and particularly the acute shortage of typing staff, will remain an impediment to rapid progress for some months to come. In the meantime certain procedural and administrative reforms are being effected, designed to speed up the work of preparation.
It should be clearly understood that at present the delay in dealing with the cases does not rest with the courts, but arises at an earlier stage—namely, the preparation of the cases for trial. My Noble Friend is in constant touch with the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division with a view to ensuring that when these cases are ready for "trial in increasing numbers there should not be delay in hearing them. The necessary arrangements to prevent this happening have been worked out.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Attorney-General tell us how far the shortage of typists referred to in his reply is due to the appallingly inadequate rates of pay given to them by Government Departments in comparison with those paid by outside employers, and may he not find. a solution to his difficulty through the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Attorney-General: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. WilIiam Teeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether undefended cases need to be held up for so long as cases that have to be defended?

The Attorney-General: The administrative delay that occurs at present is almost entirely in dealing with undefended cases. It is a question of handling the very large number of these cases which are now coming up as a result of circumstances largely connected with the war.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Attorney-General aware that much greater use might be made than at present of arrangements for affecting reconciliations between estranged parties, and that, by so doing, the family life of the country might be better maintained?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Attorney-General consult with his colleagues in the Government and arrange for 9ome measures to be taken to get more domestic help, in view of the appalling situation which now exists in family life?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEASEHOLD PROPERTY

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Attorney-General whether he will set up a committee to inquire into the hardships caused to leaseholders on the completion of their tenancy by the landlord not only taking over the property and existing goodwill and business, but often of excessive dilapidations and charges which the tenant has been unable to make owing to war conditions.

Lieutenant-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the hardship suffered by lessees by reason of covenants relating to dilapidations and to non-compensation for improvements, he will consider the advisability of legislation to protect lessees.

The Attorney-General: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King) on 20th December. The matter raises controversial issues, and with the heavy reconstruction programme in hand at present it is not now possible to consider legislation.

Mr. Freeman: I asked the Attorney-General for an inquiry into these matters, not legislation. In view of the great hardship, would not an inquiry before legislation be desirable, particularly as landlords are now claiming an undue amount of costs for these houses—in some cases 83 years' purchase for a 20 years' lease still to run?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I ask the learned Attorney-General whether he is prepared to consider further arguments, either in the form of a memorandum, or, if need be, by way of a deputation?

The Attorney-General: This matter has been the subject of inquiry and review from time to time. I would certainly be prepared to consider any memorandum which the hon. and gallant Gentleman may care to send me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Family Allowances

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air under what circumstances wives' family entitlement allowances are stopped for the period of a wife's visit abroad.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): People who go outside the sterling area cannot normally receive sterling payments there from the United Kingdom because of the present currency restrictions. In these circumstances there is no entitlement to family allowances, which are paid to help members of the Royal Air Force in meeting current expenses of accommodation and maintenance for their families.

Sir G. Fox: May I ask the Under-Secretary whether there will be back payments for these wives when they return to this country?

Mr. Strachey: At present, no, Sir. This is an inter-Service matter and also a Treasury matter, and I cannot go further than that.

Airwomen (Sleeping-out and Late Passes)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the relaxation of the order requiring all W.A.A.F. personnel to re turn to their stations by 10.30 p.m. daily.

Mr. Strachey: Airwomen can spend one night a week away from their stations and return after 10.30 on one other night. The Women's Auxiliary Air Force authorities do not consider that any change in these regulations is called for.

Mr. Langford-Holt: While admiring the hon. Gentleman's sense of responsibility in emphasisng my own impartiality in this matter, would he not think that 10.30 is possibly a little early?

Mr. Strachey: I would be advised by the W.A.A.F. authorities on this matter.

Sawbridgeworth Aerodrome

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement of his Department's intention in regard to the continuance in use or otherwise of the Sawbridgeworth aerodrome

Mr. Strachey: We do not intend to use Sawbridgeworth for flying again. It will be needed for storage for some time 10 come, but arrangenments are being made to cultivate all the available land there.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Will not the Undersecretary also bear in mind the inconvenience at present caused by the closing of the Sawbridgeworth - Much Hadam road, and will he give an undertaking that the storage arrangements will allow for the reopening of that road?

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the hon. Member would communicate with me on that matter.

Halton (Water Supply)

Major Younger: asked the Under secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the water shortage at the R.A.F. Station, Halton, Buckinghamshire, which has lasted since December; and what step have been taken to remedy it.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The difficulty is that there is a general shortage of water in this part of the country after last year's dry autumn. We have therefore had to limit the supply for members of the Royal Air Force at Halton. I understand that a new supply of water is being arranged for the neighbourhood which should bring the shortage at Halton to an end, but I am afraid that the works will not be completed before the end of the year at the earliest.

Officer Prisoners (Communal Fund)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air in how many cases at German prisoner-of-war camps for R.A.F. officers, moneys paid under the Geneva Convention to officers were administered as a communal fund; whether the accounts for these funds are held by his Department; and whether it is intended to refund to the officers concerned all sums allocated by the communal fund, either to alleviate conditions in other rank R.A.F. prisoner-of-war camps in Germany, or in settlement of barrack damages caused by escapist activities.

Mr. Strachey: Moneys paid under the Geneva Convention were administered as communal funds at three German prisoner-of-war camps for Royal Air Force officers, namely, Stalag Luft I, Stalag Luft III and Stalag Luft VI. All these funds were, however, eventually absorbed into the Stalag Luft III fund. The accounts of this fund are held in my Department. The point raised in the last part of the Question is still under consideration.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Minister state when consideration of this matter will give place to action; particularly as in the case of Stalag Luft III escapist activities were on a large scale, and the dependants of those officers murdered by the Germans as a result of escapist activities could well do with the payment of these moneys now?

Mr. Strachey: I feel great sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view on that matter, but again it is not a matter solely for my Department, as he well knows.

Demobilisation

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the impression that posting to the Far East automatically means a deferment of release; and whether he will take steps to remove this impression.

Mr. Strachey: There is no justification whatever for any impression that a posting to the Far East means that a man's release will be postponed. If the hon. and gallant Member encounters such an impression I should be extremely grateful if he will deny it categorically. It is a

principle of the Bevin release scheme that men in each age and service group are released in the same month all over the world. That principle will be upheld. All this has, of course, been repeatedly explained to the Service, in Demobforms for example. What we cannot give is any absolute guarantee against a hold-up in transport home—such as occurred for instance for 2,000 airmen in January for about a month. That hold-up is now cleared, however, and the prospect of preventing any new hold-up in March is good.

Travelling Conditions (India)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied with the conditions of travelling of R.A.F. personnel between Calcutta and Karachi.

Mr. Strachey: Owing to the shortage of rolling stock airmen sometimes, have to travel third-class on this route, but the numbers concerned are not large. Hot tea, and one hot meal a day are provided during the journey, and feeding arrangements have improved during the last year. The Command considers that on the whole, and taking local difficulties into account, travelling conditions on this route for members of the Royal Air Force are reasonably satisfactory.

Mr. Teeling: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Air Ministry is having everything possible done to improve travel, which certainly is not good?

Mr. Strachey: Travelling conditions in India are not under the control of the Air Ministry, but certainly we do everything we can to ensure the comfort of our Air Force members.

Deceased Pilots (Log Books)

Mr. Harold Sutcliffe: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will now state when the log books of deceased pilots will be available for next of kin; and if individual application for them will be necessary.

Mr. Strachey: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the announcement that we issued to the Press on 17th January, which explained that these log books were available and how they should be applied for. Over 1,000 have been applied for and despatched.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many relatives do not know that they are entitled to these books owing to insufficient publicity, and will he make another announcement in the Press?

Mr. Strachey: The Press gave a very good show to our announcement, and I hope that they will report the present interchange of question and answer in the House

Aden Demonstration (Commanding Officer's Attitude)

Mr. William Williams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when he proposes to reply to letters sent by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth, on 26th October, 10th December, 1945, and 3rd January, 1946, respectively, regarding the attitude alleged to have been taken by the air officer commanding-in- chief, Middle East, towards a demon stration at Aden.

Mr. Strachey: I am sorry to have taken such a long time in dealing with this correspondence. On the other hand this delay gave me the opportunity to talk with the Commander-in-Chief Middle East about this matter on his recent visit to this country, and satisfy myself, as I said in my letter of reply, that what he said had been entirely misunderstood by my hon. Friend's correspondent.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the reply which I received yesterday came as a pleasant surprise to me?

Indiscipline, India (Inquiry)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air in how many cases disciplinary action has been taken against R.A.F. personnel in connection with recent events in India.

Mr. Strachey: I am waiting for information from the Command on this question and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible. As the House will be aware from my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 30th January, Service inquiries are now in progress whose terms of reference include instructions to determine the responsibility both for the actual outbreaks of indiscipline and for the circumstances which gave rise to them.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these Communist agitators who have brought disgrace to the Royal Air Force will be severely dealt with?

Mr. Strachey: I can give the hon. and gallant Member the assurance that I do not accept for one moment the implication in his remarks.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the script of his recent broadcast is in the Library, and, if not, whether he will have one put there.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, certainly

Mr. Pickthorn: Which?

Mr. Strachey: It is in the Library as tar as I know, but if not I will put it there if the hon. Member would like to look at it. I would be honoured if he would do so

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Light Aeroplane Clubs

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will now state what facilities and financial assistance are going to be provided for the re-establishment of light aerodrome clubs.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): The Government have decided to make available to members of the General Council of Associated Light Aeroplane clubs 100 light aircraft, consisting of Tiger Moths, Austers and Magisters at a nominal price of£50 an aircraft. This will be a substantial help to the flying clubs in re-establishing themselves, and no direct financial assistance is proposed.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Might I ask the hon. Gentleman in the first place whether the aircraft he has enumerated are in a serviceable condition today, and, secondly, are there ample spares available?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot give a guarantee that they are in a serviceable condition, and they will certainly need a certain amount of repair, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that supplies of spares are available.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Can the Parliamentary Secretary state whether assist-


ance will be given to gliding and gliding clubs as well as light aeroplane clubs?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. The aircraft for club flying are of the types I have indicated. We certainly want to encourage gliding too.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: Will the hon. Gentleman see that petrol is also supplied to these clubs, otherwise the aeroplanes will not be able to fly?

Mr. Thomas: That is a point which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the supply of 100 unserviceable aircraft is very little encouragement to promote private flying in this country?

Mr. Thomas: I have not said the aircraft are unserviceable and I think they are a substantial measure of help. The price of these aircraft new is about£1,250 each.

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: Can we take it from what the hon. Gentleman says that there will be some sort of assistance for gliding clubs others than by the provision of cheap machines?

Mr. Thomas: I should be. willing to consider that, but I would like the question put down on the Paper.

Long Distance Flights (Notice)

Mr. Willis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why one month's notice is required for charter flights to India; and whether, in view of the potential loss of traffic as a result of consequent delays, he will consider reducing it.

Mr. Thomas: Ample notice is required for these long distance flights as the concurrence of the Governments of the territories concerned has to be obtained. It has been found in practice that a period of one month is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST COLONY

Lieut.-Colonel Rees-williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the Order in Council constituting the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast Colony was made in 1925 under the Royal Prerogative, or under the British Settlements Act, 1887;

(2)what is the constitutional status of the territory at Cape Coast on which certain forts were erected by the African Company of Merchants, in view of the fact that this territory was obtained by conquest from the King of Ashanti in 1826 and having regard to the British Settlements Acts, 1887 and 1945;
(3)what is the constitutional status of the Gold Coast Colony in view of the fact that the territory of the Colony, other than the land forming the sites for certain forts, was originally a Protectorate; and having regard to the British Settlements Acts, 1887 and 1945.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I am advised that it was decided in a recent case in the West African Court of Appeal that the whole of the territory now comprised in the Gold Coast Colony is a British settlement as defined in the British Settlements Act, 1887, and that the Gold Coast Colony(Legislative Council) Order in Council, 1925, was made under the authority of that Act. A petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Lieut.-Colonel Rees-Williams: Can the Minister inform the House why the prerogative Order by the Minister was amongst the list of prerogative Orders if that is the case, and not in the list of Orders made under the British Settlements Act?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not in a position to give an answer to that, but I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that this is matter of great legal and constitutional argument, and 1 am making inquiries into the matter and will communicate with him later.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (WILD LIFE PRESERVATION)

Sir P. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the indiscriminate slaughter of wild animals in the East African territories; and whether, in view of the need for enforcing a scientific policy of wild life preservation in the East African colonies, he will make a full statement as to the present policy of the, British Government in that connection.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am in correspondence with the Governors of the East African territories on the subject of the preservation of wild life. His Majesty's Government recognise that the wild life of these territories constitutes a unique asset, and, as such, it is their policy to conserve and protect it in accordance with the obligations which they have assumed under the International Convention of 1933. At the same time His Majesty's Government must bear in mind the requirements of human wealth and wellbeing.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABUAN (GOVERNMENT)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the future form of government of Labuan.

Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (COCOA)

Mr. George Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the cocoa co-operative societies in West Africa are managed by Government officials; and to what extent there is Government control of these co-operative societies.

Mr. Creech Jones: The cocoa co-operative societies in West Africa are registered as co-operative societies under the Cooperative Societies Ordinances in Nigeria and the Gold Coast. The affairs of each society are administered by a Committee elected by the members at general meetings. Powers of control and supervision are conferred by the respective ordinances on the registrars.

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what prices were paid for West African cocoa by the West African Cocoa Board in 1943, 1944 and 1945, respectively, as compared with the average of the five prewar years before Government marketing was introduced; and what is the price being paid at the moment.

Mr. Creech Jones: As the answer includes a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Per 60 lb. load.


Season.
Naked ex-scale railway.
f.o.b. per ton.


Pre-war prices
s.
d.
£



1933/34 
6
6
19·66 
5 years average£ 26·01


1934/35 
7
7
21·84


1935/36 
8
8
23·91


1936/37 
19
6
44·20 


1937/38 
6
6
19·80


1938/39 
6
10
20·33


1939/40
8
6
20·08



1940/41
6
6
18·42



1941/42
7
6
18·67



1942/43
7
6
21·50



1943/44
7
6
21·50



1944/45
12
6
31·50



1945/46
15
0
36·50

The average price per ton f.o.b. 1934 to 1939 was thus just over£26, including the season 1936/37 when freak prices more than double normal years were paid. Excluding this year the average price was£21 9s. 5d.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (CONSCRIPTION)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the Government's decision with regard to their future policy about conscription for national service.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have nothing at present to add to paragraph 13 of the White Paper relating to Defence.

Major Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that this prolonged delay in giving a decision on this urgent matter is causing great anxiety to thousands of parents and young men who can make no plans whatever for their immediate future?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of that and the decision will be speeded up as quickly as possible.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Does not the Prime Minister think that the time has come when national service ought to embrace such things as youth service, community service, social service and so on, and why must we for ever go on thinking of national service as purely military service?

The Prime Minister: I think there is no reason to consider service to the nation as purely military service.

Mr. Bowles: Is the Prime Minister aware that apart from Russia no country


which had conscription won the war, whereas countries which had not it were successful?

The Prime Minister: One can always take a number of cases like that, but it is not always necessarily a decisive factor.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY SERVICES

Mr. Janner: asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to indicate what is to be the future status and responsibility of the Minister of Information.

The Prime Minister: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which I hope to make in the near future about Government publicity services.

Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he will be able to give an answer if a similar Question is put to him in a week or a fortnight?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I think so.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Which Minister will now answer for that Department in the House?

The Prime Minister: I think an announcement has already been made that the Postmaster-General will be looking after the Ministry of Information, pending its winding up.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: That means that the Assistant Postmaster-General will answer in this House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

British Zone (Official's Letter)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a letter printed in the "Daily Telegraph "of 18th February from the Director of Public Relations, Control Office for Germany and Austria; with what authority the letter was published; whether its contents represent Government policy; and if he will ensure that in future such pronouncements are manifestly made by, or on behalf of the Minister concerned and not over the signature of a civil servant.

The Prime Minister: The purpose of the letter was to correct any misunderstanding of the state of affairs in the British zone of Germany to which an earlier letter in the same paper may inadvertently have given rise, and accordingly the letter was within the normal scope of the duties of a public relations officer. It contained no announcement of policy, and I can assure the hon. Member that any such announcement would normally be made only by, or on behalf of, the Minister concerned.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this letter did, in fact, contain a great many implications of policy, and that all statements of policy, whether implicit or explicit, had better be manifestly seen to be upon the responsibility of a particular Minister?

The Prime Minister: I quite agree, if it is a question of a statement of policy, but this was a statement, as I read it, on the facts of the situation.

Mr. Pickthorn: There was not a fact in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN DISTURBANCES

(Effect on Demobilisation)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister if the disturbances in India will cause any delay in the return to this country of men in the Forces stationed there and due for demobilisation.

The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware, the disturbances which have taken place have had no effect on the programme for -bringing men home from India for release.

Oral Answers to Questions — REMEMBRANCE DAY

Captain Bullock: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement as to the date of Remembrance Day; and if it has been decided to add the dates 1939–45 to the Cenotaph in Whitehall.

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on either matter.

Captain Bullock: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are many people who are most anxious to have a statement at an early date?. Can he say when he will be able to give an answer?

The Prime Minister: will give an answer as soon as possible, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that we want to keep in the closest touch with the Dominions, and than that takes some time

Mr. Skefflington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the opinion of Christians the world over strongly endorses the choice of the first Sunday in November; as that is in close proximity to Ail Souls' Day and All Saints' Day?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether I or my hon. Friend are fully acquainted with Christian opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPORTS MEETINGS (INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if he will issue a statistical statement to show the effects of football and other sporting features on absenteeism and production in the middle of the week.

The Prime Minister: A comprehensive statement could not be obtained without an elaborate inquiry, which would involve a disproportionate amount of time.

Mr. Gammans: Will the Prime Minister say whether there is any evidence that sporting fixtures in the middle of the week do, or do not, interfere with production? No one wants to interfere with sport unnecessarily, but will he not agree that the Government ought to make a statement on the subject, in view of the Press reports in the last few weeks?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will remember that in response to a recent Question by him I made a statement stressing the undesirability of having midweek matches. I hope that has had some effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST EROSION

Lady Nod-Buxton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the serious erosion on the Norfolk coast, involving a threat to Norwich, he will consider making the protection of the coast the responsibility of a single authority, and at a national charge.

The Prime Minister: In so far as coast erosion affects land drainage interests, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minis-

ter of Agriculture and. Fisheries to the hon. Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) on 18th February. So far as coast erosion which does not affect land drainage interests is concerned, no Government grants are at present available. The Government are considering the question of a greater concentration of Ministerial responsibility, but I am not At present in a position to make a statement.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he hopes to be able to make a statement on this matter? Will he take note of the fact that North Wales is affected in this respect more than any other part of the United Kingdom at the present time?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My reply does not relate to any particular area, but to the general question of dealing with coast erosion.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the sea did break through at this point 10 years ago, and that but for the fact that it broke through on a receding tide it would probably have reached Norwich? As this is a very grave problem, would he send a responsible official to the coast to see what it is that is so disturbing the local inhabitants?

The Prime Minister: The matter is being looked into.

Mr. Kinley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the work of the protection of the coast of Britain is put on to the resources of the local authorities, when it probably belongs to the Government? Will he examine the position from that angle?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (DOCTORS)

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has been informed of the shortage of doctors at the University of Vienna and throughout Austria; what is he prepared to do to meet the situation; and will he consult with the Minister of Health, so that the temporary registration of Austrian doctors in this country may be withdrawn in order to encourage them to return to their own country.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): My information, on the contrary, is that there is at present


no general shortage of doctors either at the University of Vienna or throughout Austria.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question again, as there is a very grave shortage of doctors, both in Vienna and in the British zone in Austria, and that there are great discontent and anxiety about this matter?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is giving information, not asking a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (CIVILIAN INTERNEES)

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that 50,000 security suspects in civilian internment camps in the British zone in Germany are living in conditions similar to those in Nazi concentration camps at the end of the war; that their rations are so low that they are often brought up for trial in a state of starvation; that they are not permitted to receive letters or parcels from relatives; that their treatment has provoked protests from British Servicemen and medical officers; and what action he will take.

Mr. J. Hynd: These civilian internees receive the same basic food ration as the ordinary German. Unlike the latter, however, they are unable to supplement this from any other sources. This involves a measure of hardship but steps have already been taken to see how this can be remedied although further deterioration in the general food situation is likely now to necessitate serious reduction in the basic ration throughout the zone. A special postcard and parcel service has recently been introduced to enable these civilian internees to correspond with their next of kin in the British, French or American zones of Germany.

Captain Noel-Baker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that although a number of these people have been connected with the Nazi party, they have not yet been tried and that many may be the innocent victims of irresponsible denunciation? Further, is he aware that, in general, the conditions in these camps are so like those in the Nazi concentration camps at the end of the war, that they have provoked repeated protests from Service men and women? Will he look into the question again?

Mr. Hynd: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that conditions in all camps in Germany are necessarily governed by the resources available, and that the present-day situation is not very hopeful. But within the limits of these resources we are looking into the matter, with a view to making improvements as soon as possible.

Captain Noel-Baker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that comments in the courts when suspects are being tried show that the re-education value of the trials is largely lost, because men are brought into court in a state of starvation and are not fit to plead?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Herring

Sir B. Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Food if it is proposed to dispatch klondyke herring to the Continent of Europe this summer.

The Minister of Food: (Sir Benjamin Smith): Yes, Sir, if supplies of herrings are available for the purpose.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman ensuring that there is sufficient refrigerating space for herrings to be kept here for our own people?

Sir B. Smith: Every effort is being made to acquire such space, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the export of this fish is part of our export trade, and was before the war

Mr. George Hicks: Does klondyke herring include goldfish?

Bananas (Medical Use)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that as a result of the failure of his Department to make fresh bananas available for a child lying ill in Boston hospital from coeliac disease, from 10 to 15 parcels of bananas are arriving each day at the hospital and at the home of the child's parents; and to avoid the irregular spacing of supplies consequential upon this method of securing fresh bananas for a sick child, if he will arrange upon production of proper- medical evidence for regular supplies of this fruit to be made available to sufferers from this disease

Sir B. Smith: The answer to the first part of the question is, "No, Sir." I


have however, made arrangements for people suffering from coeliac disease to be able to get ample and regular supplies of dried bananas which. I am informed by my medical advisers, are as suitable for these patients as fresh bananas. I do not propose, therefore, to make any special arrangements for them to get fresh bananas. It would not, in any case, be possible to guarantee that regular supplies of this fruit will be available.

Mr. Butcher: Because of the failure of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, which has been the subject of adverse comments in the national newspapers, is it not a fact that generous people send fresh bananas to suffering children? Why should there not be proper organisation, instead of this waste and red tape?

Sir B. Smith: The short answer is that fresh bananas are not in constant supply. I cannot guarantee fresh bananas when they are not in the country. My expert medical advisers assure me that dried bananas are equally good, and I have a' stock for this purpose.

Poultry and Game (Black Market)

Sir David Robertson: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the "black market in poultry and game; and what steps he is taking to suppress it.

Sir B. Smith: I am aware of the black market in poultry, but do not know of any large scale illicit trade in game. If the hon. Member has any information of such dealings, I shall be glad to have the matter investigated. As regards the second part of the Question, I am discussing with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture further measures to check the black market in poultry.

Sir D. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that it is quite impossible for housewives in South London to get any poultry; and does he not realise that the black market is supplying hotels and restaurants in the West End of London, the records and deliveries of which are open to the inspection of the Minister's officials, who are failing in their duty?

Sir B. Smith: All I can say is that the amount of poultry is about one per cent, of the total. It is not a commodity that one can handle on a rationing basis.

With regard to the last part of the supplementary question, every investigation is made and I take action on every case that is reported to me.

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Food if, with the object of suppressing the black market, he will arrange to import poultry from Canada for which a market will be required as a result of the increased egg production in the Dominion.

Sir B. Smith: I am considering the question of importing poultry from Canada and hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

Sir D. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that exactly the same problem faced the Ministry of Food in 1919, and that they sent out Mr. Juniper of Smithfield, who was able to import very large quantities, and so suppress the black market?

Sir B. Smith: The real point is dollars. One has to face that fact. I know there is a certain amount of poultry there, and I shall do all I can to get it, but in the final analysis it is a question of dollars and of putting one food against another.

Fish (Imports from Holland)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Minister of Food what percentage of the weekly British landings of fresh fish is represented by the 50 tons of fresh fish to be imported from Holland.

Sir B. Smith: The import of 50 tons of. fresh fish per week from Holland will represent, on present forecasts, 0.4 per cent. of weekly British landings.

Sir D. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that a single British trawler brings in some 200 to 250 tons from each voyage, and does he not realise that, as the result of widespread publicity about this minute quantity, the public is being completely misled?

Sir B. Smith: Unfortunately, the public is very often misled, but the facts are that I have to import all the fish I can obtain so as to maintain a fair supply in the country.

Commodity Supplies (Information)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food what, under the system of State bulk purchase, takes the place of the


various expert and individual statistical and information bureaux which used to keep our terminal markets constantly informed as to the harvest prospects, weather conditions and world stock position regarding such major primary commodities as, for example; wheat, sugar and cotton.

Sir B. Smith: The organisations for the collection of intelligence on commodity supplies referred to by the hon. Member are still largely intact. The statistical and other information on primary commodities is being published in the trade Press in increasing detail now that security restrictions are being lifted, and the machinery for the collection of such information is being restored in countries formerly in the war zones. In addition, there has been a considerable development of the statistical and intelligence branches in the supply Departments of His Majesty's Government dealing with commodity matters during the war and these branches are to be retained. Full reports on general economic conditions and on specific commodity matters are received regularly from diplomatic missions and buying agencies abroad. No special difficulties need, therefore, be anticipated in securing the detailed information necessary for the efficient operation of a policy of bulk purchasing.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Does not the Minister think it rather remarkable that, with all this increased information, his Ministry should not be rather better informed?

Sir B. Smith: My Ministry is informed.

Lentils

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food the total quantity of lentils for milling offered to his Ministry last year for export from India; and why they were declined.

Sir B. Smith: No lentils for milling were offered to my Department from India last year. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is it not a fact that 5,000 tons were offered from India and were declined by the Ministry?

Sir B. Smith: The facts are as I have stated them.

Pulse

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Food the position in regard to future supplies of imported pulse for milling in this country.

Sir B. Smith: Pulse suitable for milling is generally in short supply and is at present subject to allocation by the Combined Food Board. It is unlikely that the allocation to this country in the current year will be sufficient to meet the milling demand. Every endeavour is being made by my Department to secure supplies for this country within the allocation.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Is the Minister aware that unless he does something very quickly, all the pulse mills in this country will close down in two months' time?

Sir B. Smith: I am sorry, but I can only buy what is allocated to me.

Mr. De la Bère: Who allocates it?

Danish Produce

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to a recent announcement by the Danish Minister of Agriculture that Denmark is in a position to increase her agricultural production and her export of foods to England provided that Britain is prepared to pay an economic price for the produce, having regard to the substantially greater price which Denmark must now pay for her imports from Britain and other countries; and what steps have been taken to meet reasonable Danish requirements in this respect.

Sir B. Smith: I have seen a report of the statement by the Danish Minister of Agriculture. The prices paid under the agreement negotiated with the Danish government last autumn compare favourably with those paid to other exporting countries. In Denmark as in other countries the universal shortage of animal feeding stuffs is now the main factor limiting the production of bacon, meat and dairy produce

Empire Food Gifts (Distribution)

Mr. Thomas Lewis: asked the Minister of Food whether the. Colonies are still forwarding gifts of food, etc., to this country; and what methods are employed in the distribution of gifts of food.

Sir B. Smith: Gift foodstuffs continue to arrive in this country from the Dominions and Colonies. Except in the case of perishable foods, they are distributed without charge and as an addition to the rations to aged and needy people through the agency of local authorities, and direct to hospitals, charitable institutions and workers' rehabilitation centres.

Rations (Miners and Women's Services)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the rations, exclusive of canteen supplies, issued to miners and to members of the W.R.N.S., A.T.S. and W.A.A.F. fed in messes and whether he will specify orally the items of which these women receive larger rations than the miners.

Ration Scales in oz. per head per week exclusive of Canteen Supplies issued to Miners and to Members of the W.R.N.S., A.T.S. and W.A.A.F. fed in Messes are set out below:


—
Miners
W.R.N.S. 
A.T.S. and W.A.A.F.



s.
d.




Meat, Fresh or Frozen
…
 1
 2 (value) (b)
31½ (bone in
25 (boneless


Bacon
…
…
…

3
6
7


Cheese
…
…
…
12 
4
4


 Tea
…
…
…
…
2½ 
2
2


Preserves
…
…
…
4
7
12


Butter
…
…
…
3
2
2


Margarine
…
…
…
3
8½
8½ 


Cooking Fat
…
…
2(c)
—
2 (d)


Sugar
…
…
…
…
8 
13
13


(a) These figures are maxima. Lower averages are recommended, particularly in larger establishments, where this is possible consistent with a satisfactory standard of victualling.


(b) Including 2d. worth of Canned Corned Meat


(c)This will be reduced to 1 0z. beginning with the next Ration Period.


(d)This is available only when boneless meat is drawn.



In considering the above Ration Scales it should be noted that negotiations with the three Services on the question of Services' Rations have been proceeding and the scales are now under review.

Fruit and Vegetables (Importation)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food what action he is taking to accelerate the importation of French lettuce, cauliflowers, leeks, spinach, cabbage, turnips, walnuts, plums, peaches, apricots, nectarines, chicory, Algerian, Moroccan and Spanish potatoes, Belgian and Bulgarian grapes, Moroccan tomatoes, Dutch carrots, grapes, cauliflower; and onions which are now becoming increasingly available, to augment the limited rations now available in this country

Sir B. Smith: The reply to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." As to the second part of the Question, the allowances for the Women's Services at present exceed those of miners in the case of meat, bacon, preserves, margarine and sugar. The Services ration scales are under review by my Department and the three Services.

Mr. Keeling: Why has this extraordinary anomaly been allowed to go on for so long?

Sir B. Smith: I took it where 1 found it. Since I have been in office, I have achieved cuts in all Service rations, and the matter is now again under review.

Mr. Keeling: Is not the Minister aware that the war finished some time ago?

Following is the statement:

Sir B. Smith: I have sent to my hon. Friend a copy of a Press notice issued yesterday which deals with the important of many of the commodities he mentions. There will be no need to import potatoes, cabbage, spinach or leeks. The question of importing the remainder" of the commodities is either under consideration now or will be considered at the appropriate season.

Mr. Freeman: Will the Minister do everything possible to import the largest amount available, especially when there is a surplus in the countries concerned?

Sir B. Smith: I am doing my best.

Major Lloyd: Does the Minister think it is fair that hon. Members mouths should water as the result of reading such a Question on the Paper?

Mr. George Wallace: If these imports are made, will the Minister ensure that there is no black market in them and that they do not get into the hands of a few people, but that there is a reasonable allocation to all the people of the country?

Sir B. Smith: I always do my best to ensure that.

Whale Oil

Major Digby: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of whale oil was obtained by our whaling fleet during the season which has just ended; and what use has been made of the supplies of oil obtained.

Sir B. Smith: No British whaling expedition was possible in the 1944–45 season. The 1945–46 season has not yet ended. I expect to receive all the whale oil produced by the British ships and land station for use with vegetable oils in the manufacture of margarine and cooking fat

Retail and Catering Licences, Bicester

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Food if he will state the number of applications for retail and catering licences which were considered by the illegally appointed food sub-committee in Bicester; how many of their decisions have been reviewed by the general purposes sub committee, following the Minister's intervention; and whether he is satisfied that the main sub-committee was justified in supporting the illegal committee.

Sir B. Smith: Twelve applications" for licences have been considered by the General Purposes Sub-Committee of the Bicester Food Control Committee. All the decisions of the sub-committee were confirmed by the main committee. Seven favourable recommendations have been submitted to the divisional food officer for approval, and six of these have been approved. Five applications have been refused, but the applicants have been notified of their right to appeal to the divisional food officer, and two have appealed. I am satisfied that all applic-

ants have been dealt with in accordance with the general principles I have laid down for the consideration of licensing applications.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that he has not answered the question whether the food committee was illegally appointed? What action is he taking to protect the public against these officials acting outside their authority? Were any of the members of that illegally appointed committee interested at any time in similar businesses to those whose applications for licences were refused?

Sir B. Smith: I have answered the hon..Member's Question. He has merely repeated it.

Mr. Glossop: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not the food control committee was legally or illegally constituted?

Sir B. Smith: I am not in a position to answer that question today, but I will answer it if it is put down again.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that I have a letter from his Parliamentary Secretary stating that it was illegally appointed, and why does he not know this?

Sir B. Smith: I will look into that.

Sir G.Fox: asked the Minister of Food if he will publish a list of applications for retail and catering licences which were refused by the illegally appointed food sub-committee in Bicester; and a list of the applications which were granted by them.

Sir B. Smith: Applications are neither granted nor refused by Food Control Committees, whose duty is simply to make recommendations. I will send the hon. Member a list of the recommendations made in the case to which he refers

Canary Island Tomatoes

The following Question stood on the Order Paper:

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food whether he is yet in a position to re-issue licences to importers who wish to bring into this country up to 500,000 tons of tomatoes from the Canary Islands; and if he is aware that they are liable to go rotten if not imported at once, as occurred last year.

Mr. Freeman: I wish.to make a correction in the figure, which should be 50,000.

Sir B. Smith: Yes, Sir. I am making arrangements for the licences to be reissued as early as possible. I would add, however, that the quantity available is not likely to be more than one-twentieth of that mentioned in the Question. As regards the last part of the Question, I have no information as to what happened to the Canary Island tomatoes last year.

Mr. Freeman: Is the Minister aware that a consignment of tomatoes has already reached London, has been transmitted by rail through England, and that some of them have already been delivered in Ireland? Why are they not made available in England?

Sir B. Smith: The answer is that the Spanish Government intervened in these negotiations and sought to impose a condition that I was not at that time prepared to accept. Since then, however, they have changed their ground and I have agreed to take in the tomatoes.

Major Cecil Poole: Will the Minister see that in such negotiations the country is not held up to ransom by countries who have taken no part in the war?

Sir B. Smith: That is a very important consideration.

Tinned Pineapple

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Food what are the possibilities of importing Malayan tinned pineapple in the near future.

Sir B. Smith: The possibilities of importing tinned pineapple from Malaya in the near future are remote My present information is that the quantity of pineapple available for canning is insignificant, but the subject has been and is being pursued with a view to encouraging the re-development of the industry.

South African Fruit

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements are being made for the importation of the South African fruit crop.

Sir B. Smith: I regret that suitable shipping is not available for the importation this year of any substantial quantity of deciduous fruits from South Africa since other commodities requiring re-

frigerated space have a higher priority. As regards the citrus fruit crop, however. I am about to open negotiations.

Extra Cheese Ration

Captain George Jeger: asked the Minister of Food if he will state the categories of workers who are entitled to the special extra ration of cheese for packed meals.

Sir B. Smith: As the list of categories of workers to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is rather long I will, with his agreement, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

The special cheese ration is restricted to certain well defined categories of workers who are permanently employed under conditions which render the provision of canteen or other catering facilities for them impracticable.

The following are the categories of workers who are at present eligible for the special cheese ration:

Agricultural workers as below.

Other Workers

Combined Food Board

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food when the Combined Food Board was set up; the method by which it is being financed; by what facts and statistics it works; through what channels such information is supplied; what are its precise functions; how and to what degree it is entitled to deal with food supplies made available to this country by our Dominions; does its operations in any way bring these and other supplies into the dollar problem; and if he will consider issuing a White Paper on the Combined Food Board.

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Minister of Food what nations are represented on the Combined Food Board; whether it issues recommendations or instructions; and what commodities come within the control of the Combined Food Board.

Sir B. Smith: As the first of these two Questions covers so wide a field, I propose, with permission, to circulate he answer in the Official Report.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that however great the sacrifices of the Dominions in order to give more food to this country, we do not receive any additional benefit by reason of the allocation which the Combined Food Board makes?

Sir B. Smith: Of certain basic foods that would be correct, but of other foods it would be incorrect.

Mr. De la Bère: Surely the sacrifices of the Dominion? are something from

which we should get the benefit? It is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Foot: Is it not true that in the middle of 1945 wheat and flour were removed from this system of international allocation under the Combined Food Board, and can the Minister say what steps have been taken to restore wheat and flour to the system in view of the present tragic world situation?

Sir B. Smith: There was a change in the system from a six-monthly to a monthly review, so that people could keep more on top of the problem and arrange for shipping and maintain a much more fluid system than planning for six months ahead.

Mr. Foot: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the statement by Mr. Lehmann, the head of U.N.R.R.A., about the very grave disadvantages experienced by U.N.R.R.A. owing to the fact that wheat and flour were removed from this system in the middle of 1945?

Sir B. Smith: I am sorry that is not correct. U:N.R.R.A.-is not a member of the Board, but its representatives attend commodity committees where their demands are screened and discussed. 1 can well understand that Governor Lehmann would make that statement, when there is such a world shortage of the commodities we are discussing.

Mr. Driberg: Does the Minister's answer mean that wheat is not in fact controlled internationally at all?

Sir B. Smith: Wheat is not controlled in the sense that there is no procurement of it. It is allotted and then the countries that have the allotment have to go out to the world and buy it.

Mr. Foot: Is it not high time that much more strenuous efforts were made to establish a real system of international reallocation of wheat supplies in this situation?

Sir B. Smith: I hope that as soon as the F.A.O. gets into being we shall have that machine

Following is the answer.

The Combined Food Board was established in July, 1942. The small staff of the Board is provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the British Food Mission in Washington. The Board has


no other financial responsibilities. The purpose of the Board is to provide a common forum at which importing and exporting countries may discuss 'their problems and work out recommendations for presentation to their respective Governments regarding the production, procurement and allocation of available food supplies. The Board has no mandatory or executive powers.

The Board, which consists of representatives of the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, acts through its Commodity Committees which cover each of the major foodstuffs, in short supply, namely, cereals, feedingstuffs, oils and fats, meat, dairy products, sugar, rice, cocoa and spices, tea, dried fruits, fish and fish products. In addition, there are committees covering agricultural seeds and fertilisers. Each commodity committee consists of representatives of the main importing and exporting countries for that commodity. The Boardand its committees obtain the information they require regarding supplies, stocks, consumption levels and other relevant material from the members of the committees.

The Dominions, other than Canada, are associated with the Board through the London Food Council, and, in addition, they are entitled to be represented at meetings of the committees of the Board when matters of interest to them are discussed. The London Food Council performs similar functions in relation to the British Commonwealth to those of the Combined Food Board for the world as a whole, and this work is fully integrated with that of the Board. Almost all the basic foodstuffs available for export from the Dominions are allocated to the British Commonwealth and primarily to the United Kingdom.

The dollar problem is bound to affect every aspect of our food import arrangements, but the operations of the Board in no way aggravate it. After consultation with the other members of the Combined Food Board, I will certainly consider the desirability of issuing a White Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of. the House if he has any statement to make about the Business for Friday?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): On Friday, after the Second Reading of the Miscellaneous

Financial Provisions Bill and Public Works Loans Bill and remaining stages of the Agricultural Development (Ploughing Up of Land) Bill, we hope to obtain the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates which were taken in Committee on '4th and 5th February, and the Lords Amendment to the Trunk Roads Bill. It is not proposed to take the Committee stage of outstanding Supplementary Estimates.

EGYPT (ANTI-BRITISH AGITATION)

The Prime Minister: I desire to make a statement to the House with regard to occurrences in Egypt. For some time past agitation has been carried, on in Egypt against this country in support of the Egyptian national demands—and more specifically the complete evacuation of British troops—put forward in the Egyptian Government's Note of 26th December last. A strike was eventually organised by student and workmen's associations on Thursday, 21st February. At first the proceedings were orderly but it soon became evident that control was passing into the hands of groups of persons who proceeded to make systematic attacks on British civil and military property, including Royal Air Force Headquarters and the British cathedral which, as reports at the time made clear, was desecrated. British troops were finally compelled to fire in self-defence.
His Majesty's Charged Affaires immediately took the matter up with the Egyptian Prime Minister and inquired what action Sidky Pasha proposed to take to punish the persons responsible, to provide compensation for the damage, and to ensure the maintenance of Order. He was subsequently instructed to follow up this action with a formal protest to the Egyptian Government against their failure to take timely and effective action to maintain order. These instructions were duly carried out. In reply to Mr. Bowker's earlier representations Sidky Pasha announced his acceptance of the three requests put forward by Mr. Bowker, but for the rest he sought to attribute responsibility for the incidents to British military lorries which were said to have killed and injured some members of the crowd.
This version of the incident is denied in a statement issued by His Majesty's


Embassy last night, which makes it clear that attacks on British property had started over an hour before the lorries appeared and that the lorries did not, as suggested, deliberately drive into the crowd. Meanwhile the Egyptian Government's reply to the formal protest of His Majesty's Government has been received by His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires and I am awaiting the receipt of the full text.

Mr. Eden: I am not sure that 1 quite caught the answer. It is quite clear, is it not, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that he endorses the Embassy's statement completely repudiating the suggestion that our troops, who always show such immense tolerance in these 'difficult conditions, had nothing to do with provoking this conflict.

The Prime Minister: Certainly, Sir. I have given the facts as I received them.

Mr. Mikardo: Are not these difficulties to some extent due to the pusillanimity of the Foreign Office in its dealings with the Arab League?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, with respect to the qualifications of members of the Governor-General's Executive Council, to extend temporarily the powers of the Indian Legislature to make laws, to amend subsection (4) of section one hundred and two of the said Act as to the effect of laws passed by virtue of a Proclamation of Emergency, and for purposes connected. with the matters aforesaid."— [India (Central Government and ' Legislature) [Lords.]

That they request that the Commons will be pleased to return to them the United Nations Bill [Lords] the same having been taken to the Commons by mistake before the privilege Amendment had been made.

So much of the Message as relates to the United Nations Bill [Lords], considered:

Bill to be returned to The Lords.

NATIONAL SERVICE (RELEASE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS) BILL

Lords Amendment to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

FURNISHED HOUSES (RENT CONTROL) BILL

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

INDIA (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE) BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

IST ALLOTTED DAY

Considered in Committee.

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1946 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding 865,885,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil and Revenue Departments (including Education and Broadcasting, Pensions, Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance and Assistance, Food and Supply Services, Roads and other grants and Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues) for the year ending on the 51st day of March, 1947, namely:

CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS I



£


House of Lords Offices
27,000


House of Commons
180,000


Registration of Electors
130,000


Treasuryand Subordinate -



Departments
837,000


Privy Council Office 
7,500

£


Privy Seal Office 
3,500


Charity Commission 
17,000


Civil Service Commission
73,000


Exchequer and Audit Department
109,500


Government Actuary
13,000


Government Chemist 
47,000


Government Hospitality
17,000


The Mint 
10


National Debt Office
500


National Savings Committee
460,000


Overlapping Income Tax Payments
600,000


Public Record Office
18,500


Public Works Loan Commission, 
10


Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
62,000


Royal Commissions, etc.
57,000


Secret Service
1,000,000


Tithe Redemption Commission
10


Miscellaneous Expenses
45,000


Scotland: Scottish Home Department 
90,000

Class II



Foreign Office 
1,000,000


Diplomatic and Consular Establishments, etc.
3,500,000


British Council
800,000


League of Nations
120,000


United Nations
600,000


Dominions Office
42,000


Dominion Services
220,000


Oversea Settlement 
2,500


Colonial Office 
250,000


Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
3,500,000


West African Produce Control Board
500,000


Development and Welfare(Colonies, etc.)
2,500,000


Development and Welfare



(South African High Commission Territories)
90,000


India and Burma Services 
10,337,000


Imperial War Graves Commission
100,000

Class III


Home Office
420,000


Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
51,000


Police, England and Wales
8,860,000


Prisons, England and Wales
1,050,000


Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales
250,000


Supreme Court of Judicature, etc. 
10


County Courts, etc. 
150,000


Land Registry
10


Public Trustee
38,000


Law Charges
150,000


Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
36,000


Scotland:



Police 
50,000


Prisons 
119,000


Approved Schools, etc.
60,000


Scottish Land Court
3,800


Law Charges and Courts of Law
31,450


Register House, Edinburgh
2,500

£


Ireland:


Northern Ireland Services 
4,000


Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.. Northern Ireland
21,350


Irish Land Purchase Services
616,000

Class IV


Ministry of Education
35,000,000


British Museum
70,000


British Museum (Natural History) 
50,000


Imperial Wax Museum
6,500


London Museum 
4,000


National Gallery
21,500


National Maritime Museum
4,000


National Portrait Gallery 
4,500


Wallace Collection
6,000


Scientific Investigation, etc.
750,000


Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain 
3,000,000


Broadcasting
3,750,000


Scotland:



Public Education 
6,100,000


National Galleries
7,000


National Library
2,000

Class V


Ministry of Health
18,500,000


Board of Control
105,000


Registrar-General's Office
130,000


Ministry of Labour and National Service 
9,750,000


Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
440,000


Ministry of National Insurance
17,000,000


Assistance Board
2,800,000


National Insurance Audit Department
52,000


Friendly Societies Registry
16,000


Old Age Pensions
22,000,000


Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions
6,000,000


Supplementary Pensions
21,500,000


Ministry of Town and Country Planning 
230,000


Scotland:



Department of Health
3,700,000


Board of Control 
9,500


Registrar-General's Office
21,000

Class VI.


Board of Trade
7,500,000


Services in Development. Areas 
3,830,000


Financial Assistance in Development Areas
44,000


Export Credits 
10


Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
95,000


Ministry of Fuel and Power
1,000,000


Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands 
14,000


Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
2,500,000


Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services) 
6,000,000


Surveys of Great Britain, etc
400,000


Forestry Commission
750,000


Development Fund 
330,000


Ministry of Transport
1,600,000

£


Roads, etc.
6,600,000


Mercantile Marine Services 
1,250,000


Ministry of Civil Aviation 
9,000,000


Development Grants
140,820


Department of Scientific and



Industrial Research
650,000


State Management Districts
10


Clearing Offices
10


Scotland:



Department of Agriculture 
550,000


Department of Agriculture (Food Production Services)
I,250,000


Fisheries
114,000


Herring Industry 
2I5,000

Class VII.


Ministry of Works
2,393,000


Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain
230,000


Houses of Parliament Buildings 
167,000


Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
50,000


Osborne 
11,000


Public Buildings, Great Britain
14,241,000


Public Buildings, Overseas
204,000


Royal Palaces
84,000


Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
139,000


Miscellaneous Works Services
1,410,000


Rates on Government Property 
3,339,000


Stationery and Printing
4,000,000


Central Office of Information
880,000


Peterhead Harbour 
5,000


Works and Buildings in Ireland
35,000

Class VIII.


Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
85,000


Ministry of Pensions
38,000,000


Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
435,000


Superannuation and Retired Allowances 
1,500,000

Class IX


Exchequer Contributions to



Local Revenues, England and Wales 
21,500,000


Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
1,356,000

Class X


Ministry of Supply 
250,000,000


Ministry of Food
103,500,000


Ministry of Transport (War Services) 
39,000,000


Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services) 
5,000,000


Home Office (War Services)
11,650,000


Control Office for Germany and Austria
28,000,000


United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration 
33,000,000


Advances to Allies, etc.
15,000,000


War Damage Commission
400,000


War Service Grants 
2,600,000

£


Scotland:


Scottish Home department (War Services)
540,000


Total for Civil Estimates
£812,885,000

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS


Customs and Excise 3,600,000.
3,600,000


Inland Revenue 
5,400,000


Post Office 
44,000,000


Total for Revenue Departments
£53,000,000


Total for Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments
£865,885,000

Orders of the Day — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MANPOWER)

3.22 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: We on this side of the House welcome the opportunity which is now presented to us for some review of the economic state of the nation and a review of the progress which we are making towards the re-establishment of our trade and industry. I would ask the House to believe that, in what I have to say, I shall not try to be promotive of controversy or of party passions, and I shall genuinely try to be objective and not merely objectionable, although of course 1 cannot avoid criticisms. I think it worth saying that we on this side of the House do not approach these economic questions with any preconceived notion of rejecting any expedients which may appear to fit the times. We shall judge them entirely by the touchstone of whether they are practicable, and whether, in our opinion, they will serve the public interest.
I have a suspicion that today's Debate is about to herald a period of government by exhortation, and if it is to mark also the end of a period of government solely by restriction, the occasion is none the less welcome for that reason. However, the exhortations which I expect will be uttered by His Majesty's Government will fail unless certain things are done: first of all, unless we are willing to turn aside for a moment from facing the future to facing the present and looking at the facts; and secondly, unless the Government can try to achieve something of the national drive and national unity which we achieved at the time of Dunkirk, or


try to unleash some of the energies which sprang to life when our task was to equip Russia when she was invaded. The Government, however, can only get such national unity by being willing to defer some of their most far-reaching projects, and by laying on one side some of those streamlined Bills with which we on this side of the House are becoming so painfully familiar; in short, by setting itself to close rather than widen some of the deep cleavages which separate the great political parties. If I may say so with respect, the violent propaganda which is carried on, with a virulence unequalled since the 18th century by the organs of the Left—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—[against that part of the nation which has the misfortune not to share their political views, is not the best of preparations for a common drive for a common purpose.
I must try to give some review of the economic state of the country as it appears to us, partly, of course, to try to elicit information from His Majesty's Government which is not yet available to us. Perhaps it is right to consider first the progress which we are making towards re-establishing our export trade—[perhaps the most vital of all the economic problems which face us because, on the re-establishment of the export trade, depends our ability to buy the food and the raw materials to nourish our population and to sustain our industries.
In 1938 our exports averaged£39.2 million per month, and I think it is fair to say that if that sum were adjusted to today's price level, our exports should be computed at about£60 million a month in terms of today's money—[that is probably a slight under-estimate. Comparisons with today's exports must be rather rough and ready because it is extremely difficult to eliminate from the figures those hectic exports which I think will only be a passing feature of the scene. However, in November our exports were about£30 million, and it is necessary to state that they were abnormally depressed by certain passing circumstances, notably the dock strike. In December and January—[and I think this is on the Prime Minister's authority—[our exports were£43,500,000 in December and£57 million in January. These last two figures, just as the November figures were depressed,

were raised by the release of certain goods held up in November, so it is fair to say that an average of about£43 million a month is the present level of our exports. Having adjusted the prices, we have to compare that figure with£60 million in 1938.
Now this general calculation is also borne out by looking at the volume index, and I cannot go beyond the last quarter of 1945, when the volume of our exports would be under 50 per cent. of the average of 1938. We must remember that we ' are aiming at a target of 75 per cent. above that, and so we are now under 50 per cent. in relation to the target at which we aim of 175. The figures which I have given, however, are very much worse than they appear at first sight because we must remember that anything we can now produce we can sell. This is a fact which cannot be gainsaid. No pressure in daily business is necessary on the unhappy commercial salesman; all the pressure that has to be exerted now is upon the production engineer and upon the workers engaged in production. It is disquieting, therefore, to find the rather pedestrian rate at which our exports are being re-established.
The cause need not be looked for in either the cost of our goods or their quality, nor, we are assured, is it due to any lack of ships. We have been assured by the Minister of Transport that there is no hold-up in shipping for export. That is not borne out in practice, because exporters.are getting ships at irregular intervals. We are driven to the conclusion, which is inescapable, that our exports are not rising with the buoyancy which they should, because our production is lagging behind. It is necessary to place the present value of exports in relation to the value of' imports, and to appraise the debt. I think the last available figure shows that the average value of imports is something of the order of£90 million a month. They were£90.2. million, for example, in the month of November. I think two-thirds of these imports come from non-sterling countries, and one-third from sterling countries. But, if we set these figures against the exports of, say,£43 million we are running into a deficit on international account of approximately£50 million a month on physical exports and imports;£600 million a year, which is a very formidable figure. I do not think any private in-


dividual has the data on which to make an estimate of invisible exports at the moment, but on physical exports and imports we have a deficit of no less than£600 million a year. Although I am not suggesting it is entirely relevant, that is an amount which would exhaust the American Loan in about 18 months.
I confine myself to the physical exports in order to draw particular attention to the great need to foster our invisible exports by all the means that lie in the power of the Government. I again remind the House that this deficit is not due to inability to sell, but to inability to produce. I must turn therefore to the level of production. Let me say how much I welcome the public appearance of a very old friend, the Monthly Digest of Statistics. This document is very familiar to all who were Ministers in the Coalition Government. In those days, of course, the information could not be published for obvious reasons. The present document is a repetition, in many respects, and an expansion in others, of the information which was available to the Coalition Government. It is a very welcome and comprehensive document. 1 suppose the publication is in fulfilment of one of the pledges, or recommendations, in the White Paper on Employment. I congratulate the Central Statistical Office on this production. I hope they will now feel able to tackle the problem of compiling some production index to give us an estimate, first of all global, of our total rate of production, and afterwards to examine an index of production for particular industries. It will be a great help in appraising our position. Even without such an index, certain broad conclusions can be stated. The labour force engaged today on home civilian industry and services, and for exports, is almost exactly 2,500,000 workers under the total employed in mid-1939, which is a favourable reference year—[favourable to the Government. This figure is all the more striking, because, since 1939, the working population is greater by 1,220,000 workers, in round figures. The Minister of Labour is my authority for both statements, so I hope he will not look sceptical. If we presume, which we cannot, the output per man week to be the same, our index production would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 85 per cent.
It is necessary to go a little further, and look at the production in some of the

basic industries, on which our whole economic future depends. Our present rate of production of saleable mined coal is about one million tons per week under the level of 1938–52 million tons per annum down. That is perhaps the grimmest figure in the whole economic picture. I think it is becoming generally known that there are many plants working below capacity because of shortage of coal. I state categorically, after making inquiries, that by Easter, the railways will have to reduce the number of trains very drastically, or a number of plants engaged in production for civilian consumption and export will have to close down altogether. There are other bad consequences arising from the lack of coal. We cannot export coal to Sweden, and so cannot get the timber we require. The same applies, I believe, to fats from Denmark.
I next deal with the basic industry of cotton and wool textiles. Production of cotton yarn is still disappointingly low. The bottleneck, I believe, is still in yarn. The latest figures, while they show some recovery from the lowest points reached in the war, show no buoyancy. The figures for production in October and November, 1945, are no better than those for October and November, 1944, which was during the war. The supply of woven cloth is still approximately at the level of the first quarter of 1944. Steel output, on the other hand, over which the sword of Damocles is still suspended, shows a very much better picture. It is running at an annual rate of about I2£ million tons compared with less than Io£million tons in 1938. That is satisfactory, but there is an increased capacity of at least one million tons which could be reached with great benefit to our exports if we could import—[and that is a shipping matter—[a little more foreign ore and also if there were more adequate supplies of coal.
I turn to the question of employment and the reallocation of labour. We are still 2,500,000 under the 1939 level in civilian industry in spite of the increase in the working population. I am somewhat puzzled by the positive achievements claimed by the Ministry of Labour, so to speak, on the other side of the account. It is claimed that 1,850,000 workers have been transferred from war production or Government work, to civilian industry since the middle of 1939. Of this number 1,114,000 have gone, according to the


Ministry of Labour figures, into the category of metals and chemicals. Unfortunately, this category includes metal manufacturing, merchant shipbuilding and ship repairing, engineering, aircraft motors and other vehicles, metal goods, chemicals and 'explosives. It is impossible for a private individual to get a close analysis of what is happening, but I can say, with good authority, looking at it from the intake end of industry, that these figures are not borne out; they have little practical significance. We know that these 1,850,000 workers have not been transferred from war production on to peace production. The great bulk of that transfer is not a physical transfer at all, but merely a reclassification of their occupation by the Ministry of Labour—the same man at the same bench who was previously on Government production and who is now on civilian production. That is not a criticism; it is a fact.
All over the engineering industry, we are very short of labour. I am in personal touch with the labour situation, the supply of labour in London, Manchester, Coventry, Leicester, Birmingham, Rugby, etc. The story is always the same, "Our production is inert and cannot be raised because we cannot get the labour." But it cannot be got I can only ask the Ministry of Labour to conduct an inquiry from the other end of the industry so that we can get a more accurate picture. They will find a labour situation at the intake end which does not at all accord with the release figures that are given. They will find the results extremely disquieting. in the engineering industry we are accustomed to receive exhortations and even eulogies from the President of the Board of Trade, but. we get no help with the main shortage from which we are suffering, that of labour.
One of the most serious aspects of employment at this moment, and perhaps one of the most serious aspects of our national economy, is that there are no fewer than 1,790,000 workers at the present time engaged on the production of munitions of war and warlike equipment. As far as I can see—and this is subject to correction—the labour force making munitions has, up to the present, not even been shrinking by the normal amount of wastage. It would appear that casualties of this labour force have, to some extent, been made up by drafts

from the general pool. Very belatedly the scandal of these figures—and they are nothing less than scandalous—has been recognised by the Government, and in the White Paper on Defence a tardy, but nevertheless welcome, repentance is announced, and it is confessed that this figure of nearly 1,800,000 must be reduced by the end of the year to 500,000. This is indeed welcome, but it hardly excuses the fact that in February, 1946, six months after the end of the Japanese war and nine months after the end of the war in Europe, this vast number are making munitions, and no doubt still making jungle equipment for the welt in Burma. It is to be hoped that we can manage to stop preparing for the last war, but it really does not appear so from these figures.
I must refer to the Armed Forces, and again this is just a statement of fact. By June, 1946, we shall still have 2,000,000 men and women in the Armed Forces. I can say with great certainty that we shall then have more than 1,000,000 men and women making munitions, so that in June, 1946, one out of every seven of the working population will be engaged, either in the Armed Forces or in making munitions. That is a very serious figure. There is another aspect of the matter. I am now dealing with that part of our national economy which consists of "taking in one another's washing," to use the old phrase. There are 950,000 workers in national Government service, and 850,000 in local government employment. In June, 1946, adding that total to the 3,000,000—and that is an under-estimate—employed in the Armed Forces and munitions, we reach a total of 5,000,000 people on Government service and not really engaged on productive industry, out of a working population which may well have sunk by that time to 20,000,000; it is now 20,900,000. That means about one man or woman in every four will fall into those categories.
Perhaps the most ghastly monument of waste is represented by this production of munitions, nearly all of which are as obsolete as the cuirass or blunderbuss, the moment they leave the production line. Have the demands of the Admiralty for capital ships been adjusted to these times of the atomic bomb? I am told—I hope it is a joke but I believe it is serious—that for the first time, since the United States came into war produc-


tion of aircraft, we have surpassed their monthly output of combat aircraft. I cannot congratulate His Majesty's Government on that left handed record, if it is a fact. It is also said, and if it is not true its denial will do good, that Stirling aircraft, which, to our certain knowledge, have been obsolete for some years, have quite recently been produced, and have been scrapped as soon as they have left the production plant. Can we have a reassurance about that?

Mr. Lee: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask a question? In relation to the production of munitions, would he differentiate between those so engaged and many thousands of engineers, who in establishments under his chairmanship, as he well knows, never changed their prewar type of production during the war period? While that productivity was necessary for war purposes during the war those engineers are still employed on the same type of work, but are classified as being on war work.

Mr. Lyttelton: I recommend the hon. Member to study a footnote on page I of the employment section of the Monthly Statistical Digest. I had better read it. No doubt this will come as a surprise to the hon. Member. The figures for munition workers are here referred to as
 "mainly equipment and stores for the Armed Forces. The figures include some employment, which cannot be separately distinguished, on a limited range of goods which are put to civilian use, but as far as possible persons producing goods for civilian use ordered by the Supply Departments are included in ' Home market ' or ' Export.' 
That is a complete refutation of the defence which is sometimes put up.
I turn to other disquieting features of employment. The most disquieting, and the greatest cause of our disappointing rate of production, is the fact that we are not working as hard as we should. Output per man-week— [Laughter]—I put it in the least provocative way I could. I say, "We are not working as hard as we should "—the nation, if hon. Members wish. I have made extensive inquiries of nearly all industries, and everywhere I get confirmation that output per man-week is down by 20or 30 per cent, since VJ-Day. This is not a criticism; these are facts. I do not think that any industrialist or experienced trade union leader will deny the truth. of that state

ment. Why has it happened? We have, of course, to recognise that management and workers alike are tired after six years of war, and they have very little variety in their diet.
Of course, there is the feeling (by those who have seen the New Jerusalem in technicolour during the Election, that a new era has dawned, and perhaps high earnings and high wages can still be gained without a high rate of work and effort. No doubt, there is some force in both those arguments, but I think there is a material factor which far outweighs the psychological factor. We cannot expect a full week's work out of the workers of this country at this moment, be wages what they may, because the goods which they want to buy are not available. I know quite well there is some outlet in savings. Certainly the working population has made a noble contribution to financing the war by savings but, human nature being what it is, there comes a time, when a man says, "I really prefer a day in bed to another war savings certificate." Is not that very natural?
It may interest hon. -Members opposite to know if they do not know already, that this particular problem was faced by Russia. The Russians had all the advice and technical assistance which we could give them in certain industries, in which production was extremely low. They could not make out what the reason was. The reason was that life was too drab. There was a uniformity of wages and a uniformly dull choice to the consumer. I know that this is a poor form of Socialist doctrine. The Socialists rather believe in cutting the tops off everything and making everything the same. [Interruption.] It is really quite a serious point There are not available enough of the things which the population want to buy. The President of the Board of Trade is always telling us that we have to tighten our belts. Unfortunately the situation of most people by now is that they have not got any belt to tighten. It is very difficult. We are told we must do without in order to export.. This, in broad principle, is very desirable but like so many of the theories of the President of the Board of Trade. it remains a theory, and has no relation whatever to human beings

Lieutenant Herbert Hughes (Wolver-hampton, West): Is the right hon. Gentle-


man aware that traders are saying quite openly, that, in fact, their sales during the war years were considerably more than they were before the war, because the average working population are buying more now, and have bought more during the war, than they did in the days of peace—the reason being they have more money to spend?

Mr. Lyttelton: The working population has greatly increased. This is really not an argumentative point It is a fact which every industrialist and every worker knows. The incentive is not there. This is the main cause of the very serious falling off in productivity of nearly 30 per cent. They have no incentive and the goods which they want to buy are not available in the shops
I think we ought also to look for a moment at other causes. A very serious cause—in which sometimes unholy alliances are to be found of the Government, the employer, and the worker—is a great tendency to remain in the attractive engineering industries which have been built up in the war, and, very naturally, not to seek employment in some of those basic industries, which are less, attractive but which are nevertheless vital to our economic life. A foundry is a less attractive place in which to work than a radio valve factory.

Mr. Kirkwcod (Dumbarton Burghs): You will have to pay them accordingly.

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member should address these exhortations to the Government and not to me. There are many workers who are hanging on to their jobs in the hope that they will not have to go to less attractive industries. There are many employers who are retaining workers because they wish to keep a command over skilled labour. There are many timorous officials, if not Ministers, in His Majesty's Government who are encouraging the process.
Another cause for the maldistribution and shortage of labour lies in national planning or national shamming, as it often is, in industry. National planning is only possible of industry if we are to direct and discipline the principal ingredient of production, which is men's minds and hands, in exactly the same way as we discipline and regiment the raw materials, the machine tools, the

building licences, and the capital. The present national plan consists of putting every kind of restriction and control— many of them are necessary; I am not denying that—upon.the material ingredients of production, whilst leaving the main source, namely men's labour and brains, entirely undirected. We on this side of the House think that is socially undesirable, and at least hon. Members on the other side think it is politically impossible, to dictate to every man and woman where he or she is to work. Perhaps here is something upon which we all agree, though hon. Members opposite have rather different reasons. If we do agree, the national plan must be recast. At the present moment, and I say this with the deepest sincerity, we are getting the very worst of both worlds. We are cramping and confining individual enterprise and initiative; we are wrapping our industrialists, our traders, and now our financial institutions, in a mass of regulations which prevent them from doing anything which does not accord with the so-called national plan. But the national plan is a sham, and will remain as undefined as it is unattainable, unless this point is faced.
The last subject on which I must touch for a moment is that of our national expenditure. We are now informed that our national expenditure is to reach the really staggering figure of£3,940 millions in the year 1946–47. For the year which begins nine months after the end of the war in Europe, and six months after the end of the Japanese war, this vast sum is to be expended. It is no use the Chancellor inveighing against inflation and blowing the Treasury trumpets in the battle against it if he is to put out figures like this. I ask the Prime Minister how sums of this kind are to be financed. Is it not inevitable that the mass of the population will have to be taxed more heavily, unless we are able to make cuts which seem altogether beyond the immediate possibilities? There is no other means of raising a sum half as big as this by orthodox means.
Here is a field where some national planning might take place, but have the Government got any plan at all? Have they made a computation of the total liabilities which are now piling up one upon the other—the National Insurance scheme, the comprehensive medical service, the re-equipment of the coal


mines, the great number of houses we must build, the subsidies to keep down the cost of living, and the possible cost of the pledge, rather unwisely given by the Chancellor, to keep the cost of living pegged down in all circumstances. We are entitled to look at everything which is proposed in the light of figures clearly presented to us, but they are not clearly presented to us, in my opinion, because the Government have not totted up the sum. I think this general survey shows that we are in a very grave economic condition.,
May I, with respect, suggest some of the means and measures which should now be taken, and taken quickly, to put things right? First, I think it necessary to arrest the policy of nationalisation at the point which it has now reached. I do not ask hon. Members to give up any cherished beliefs, but let these further measures be delayed for two years.

The Chairman (Major Milner): I must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to refer to matters which require legislation. This is a matter which would involve legislation.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am suggesting that further experiments might be deferred, and it is a suggestion that the Government should refrain from legislation. If I did not express it properly, I apologise, but that is my point. I think we ought, at the present moment, to take a pull. Secondly, let us use more imagination, and devote more attention to the study of new industries which can be developed here, when we get the labour. That study ought to begin now. Does the Government's imagination extend beyond the watch and clock trade, about which they are taking active measures now? [Interruption.] I am talking about the provision of new industries

Mr. Medland: Such as?

Mr. Lyttelton: Well, such as watches and clocks and film base. Thirdly, we must cut down national expenditure and plunge the knife even more deeply into the. bloated figures of the production of weapons and munitions. Fourthly, we should turn a critical eye to the nature of the weapons we are making. Fifthly, we should try to persuade people to get to work again. The Government will not succeed on the philosophy of the Presi

dent of the Board of Trade. The apparent paradox is true; we shall not get higher production and higher exports, unless we can release more goods for home consumption. It will payx—and I am only taking the economic point of view—to give the home population some more motor cars, some more petrol, some more radios and even some more luxuries, even if these measures appear to be, at the moment, at the expense of exports. Sixthly, could we not use the eloquence of the Lord President of the Council to promote our trade, and not misuse it in telling everyone that British industry is bad and inefficient? I may say that I expect small positive results from this suggestion, but some negative gains. Seventhly, let us re-open the terminal markets, especially those in copper, rubber and metal, even if there are some foreign exchange difficulties in doing so.
This is, again, one of the means of re-establishing our invisible exports. These exchanges are a necessary piece of machinery for the trades which they serve, and they were designed, and their origin, nature and the very reason for their existence is, to prevent the taking of unnecessary risks by traders, whether manufacturers or distributors. They will cheapen the cost of many things which we have to import. I assert that, today, the price of cotton is several cents a pound above what it would be if the Liverpool Cotton Exchange was open, and that opinion will be supported by experts if they are consulted. Our present system in cotton is said to be block purchase. Actually, it is blockhead purchase. These terminal markets will bring, not only invisible exports, but much indirect business to manufacturing, warehousing, insurance and banking.
Eighthly, the Government should abolish the Excess Profits Tax. As a mere tax, it is bad, though it has won universal commendation in war as a means of taking the profit out of war production. But the war is over, and now this tax leads to inefficiency and waste, and is it surprising that this tax, on one of the sources of capital which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government are narrowing every day, is now acting as a squeaking brake on the expansion of industry? There is no justification, other than that of revenue, for keeping such a tax on at this time. Ninthly, could we not have a more


positive attitude by the Government to industry? Is it not time they dropped their present attitude of:
 I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him? 
Tenthly, eliminate restrictions wherever we can. We cannot do without controls on things which are genuinely scarce, but there is no control over the great motive force of industry, which is labour, and which is scarce enough. Could we not try to stop the game of battledore and shuttlecock between Government Departments? If the Government need an instance of that, they can find one in their own family, over housing; they will find this battledore and shuttlecock in the Ministries of Health, Works, Supply, Labour, Town and Country Planning and last, but by no means least, though, as I think, perhaps worst, the Ministry of War Transport. The Government should not forget that everybody has not the energy to hack their way through the jungle of Government restrictions. Let us have some measures to do things, and not more and more legislation every day to prevent us doing things. I really believe that the road to economic perdition will be found to be paved with streamlined resolutions.
Lastly, could not right hon. Gentlemen opposite ask some of their supporters to forgo the sport, however amusing it may be, of imagining everyone opposed to their political views to be, necessarily, a racketeer or a plutocrat? Those who do not belong to the Labour Party at least put up as stout a fight as anyone else in the last war, and shed as much blood, and perhaps more. They certainly have not changed, in six months, from patriot? to profiteers

4.9 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) started his speech by saying that he was going to make a serious survey. I think he did begin, and, for the greater part of hi? speech continued, on those lines, but ! thought he rather departed from it at the end. I must say I was a little surprised, because I gathered that he classed himself among the lively and optimistic people. I cannot say that I saw very much optimism in his speech. I think it

was rather excessively gloomy. I am not going to hide our difficulties from the House, but there is no point in overestimating the gloom, and I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little too much obsessed with reading what I call Left Wing papers.
I might retort that quite a number of papers which do not support the Government, might also refrain from a good many things they say which are not helpful. I have noted the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, both with regard to the oratory of the Lord President, and other matters. I do not think he brought all his suggestions actually in line with the evils he seeks to remedy He did not really show that proposals of nationalisation had hindered the progress of demobilisation and reconstruction. With regard to other matters relating to new industries, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will pursue those matters in every possible way. We are not sitting by the bedside of dying or dead industries. We are perfectly alive to the fact that you have to stimulate new industries.
The right hon. Gentleman raised other points which seemed to me to belong to a budgetary Debate. It would obviously be out of Order now to discuss E.P.T. or such matters. I did not think he related—indeed he could not in his speech have related—the question of Social Insurance measures and the cost of Social Insurance and social services generally to our all-over budgetary position. They are matters of an internal reallocation of purchasing power. But I am sure he will be able to develop that at a later stage in this Session when we come to the Budget. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman opened on broad lines, because we want everybody to look at the major difficulties that face this country. This Debate gives us an opportunity to review the economic outlook, not with wild optimism—and certainly not with deep pessimism—but with realism. The first thing we all have to remember is that our prospects and our plans for the future stand against a background of international stress and strain, of war-time destruction and dislocation, that the shadows that were over the world have been lifted, but have not entirely departed, and that, after all, we are only some six or seven months from the ending of the war. Therefore, we


have to see what faces us and consider the spirit in which to face our difficulties. I think that we have to face what I have never concealed—and what I do not think any of my colleagues has ever concealed—the immediate difficulties of the post-war period.
It is a mistake for hon. Members to suggest that either I, or my Party, at the Election suggested that immediately after the war there was going to be a wonderful paradise. I made- about 50 or 60 speeches, and 1 can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in every one of them I stressed the fact that the period was going to be a very difficult one, and I believe my colleagues did the same. We have to rebuild our physically battered homes, our schools and our factories. We have to restore the normal peacetime life of industry. We have to refill our shops and our homes which have been depleted of their reserves. We have to create an export trade on a greater scale than ever before. We have to fulfil essential requirements abroad, and it is just as well, looking at all these matters, to remember that we have those responsibilities abroad which we cannot avoid. We have to play our part, as well as we can, in restoring the shattered economy of other countries, and we intend to make a good beginning towards the achieving of all this in. the year 1946. No one suggests that all this ruin of six years of war and of many years of neglect before the war can be retrieved in six or 12 months, or even in two years. Today we were asked to concentrate particularly on the manpower problem. Our immediate problem is to try to allocate our limited resources of manpower, materials, finance and foreign exchange so as to try and meet these claims as far as we can. Just as we had to plan in the war to secure the maximum impact against the enemy, so we have to plan in the transition, while shortages continue, in order to make the best use of the supplies we have.
In any review of what is actually happening at the present time, we must remember that we are in a period of transition, a period in which the process of demobilisation is going on all the time. During this winter we have carried out a programme of demobilisation while working on our plans for the future. We have carried out the promises we made with regard to demobilisation. Thanks, I think, are due to all those responsible,

the Service Departments and others, that demobilisation is proceeding smoothly. Nearly 100,000 a week are being demobilised, and during January 445,000 were released. Those are very big numbers. Think of the process of demobilisation, of providing for all those people. It is a very remarkable achievement for which we ought to take credit, not for a Government but for our own people who worked out this scheme. We can see in other countries that it has not always worked as well as here. That rate will necessarily decline during the coming months because we tried to speed up in the earlier time, but I think the success of our efforts give a reasonable hope of reaching a target of reduction by December, 1946, provided—one has to mention that proviso—we do not get external disturbances.
At the same time, there has been a great reduction in the number of people working on supplies for the Forces. Between June and December the drop here was by about 2,100,000. That is a very 'big change-over, and I may say that the figure my right hon. Friend gave me for December—not the most recent figure—was 1,790,000 engaged on equipment, but that figure has come down during the last two months fairly quickly. I would say a word on that, because the right hon. Gentleman made it rather a point. It is quite true that it is a very difficult thing to switch over to civilian work from war work all at once. We had to estimate in all cases where there was a great deal of work in hand, whether it was better to finish off that work or scrap it. A great deal was scrapped. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is serious in suggesting that we should scrap all armaments because of the atomic bomb. While we have Armies in the field we have to keep them supplied. We have to have a certain output of aircraft so long as we have an Air Force. We have to keep a potential running while the world is in its present condition and, although I would like to have seen a speedier run off of munitions, there has, nevertheless, been a very heavy run off of munitions.
We are bringing it down still further to the numbers which were given in the White Paper. With regard to the number of war vessels, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, again and again, these were cut. They were looked at in the closest possible way in order that we


might not be producing obsolete craft and wasting our resources. There has, therefore, been a great switch over Between the end of June and December the total number of workers engaged in working for export has risen from 435,000 to 920,000—that is, nearly 100 per cent, increase—and those engaged in manufacturing civilian consumers' goods from 2,624,000 to 3,684 000, which is an increase of about 40 per cent. That is an unprecedented rate of growth in the many sections of industry, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman how long it takes to switch over from one process to another—the process of retooling and all the rest of it.
During this change-over it is worth while noticing that in the insured population unemployment has risen from only 75 per cent. to under 2.5 per cent. in January. One has to remember—and I grant it—that there is a lag in the time between men coming out of the Forces and their entering industry. That is due to the deliberate policy of this Government and the Government before if, that people coming back from the Forces should have a period of leave. There is, therefore, a lag, but in all our industries there has been an increase except—and I grant the exception—that of coal. I do not think the House will expect me today to go into the whys and wherefores of the difficulty in the coal industry. We all know what was the position of the coal industry before the war. We know the enormous difficulties through the war of keeping up our labour force. We know that the miners are becoming, comparatively, an aged part of our population, and there is the difficulty of getting young men in. One has to face these facts. If the workers in a particular industry, with heavy work like this, are getting older, we cannot expect to get the same out of them. At the same time, I am not going to suggest that I am satisfied with the output which we are getting now. There has been elsewhere an encouraging intake. My Tight hon. Friends the Lord President of the Council and the President of the Board of Trade will later on give details of individual industries and their particular intakes.
There is one point which is sometimes omitted and which is worth making. I know how hard pressed people are for

getting clothing. It is sometimes forgotten how much clothing is rightly and necessarily going to the men who fought in the war. We have this great body of people coming out week by week and month by month, receiving clothing and a not ungenerous allowance of coupons, and if one look sat that in the ordinary course of events, away from the war, one will see that a considerable proportion of the population are getting big outfits. That necessarily means less for the rest. That demand, of course, will tail off as we proceed with the process of demobilisation. There is one misconception I would like to remove. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman made it, but it has been made sometimes, and I know it causes a great deal of trouble. It is the suggestion that we are taking a great deal of the goods which people might be enjoying, and sending them off for the export trade. I do not think that is true. We are not holding back consumer goods. As a matter of fact, out of the very encouraging. total of£57 million in January, the biggest items came from iron and steel—over£5 million; machinery— over£6 million; chemicals—nearly£5 million; vehicles and aircraft—nearly£5 million. But I know it has been suggested to the hard-pressed people that they could have everything they liked if we were not so strong on the export trade.
The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly stressed the importance of the export trade. But the export trade and our home trade have, at the present time, to count on a depleted manpower in a period of transition, when the right hon. Gentleman knows there must be a lag from the time when we get the people back to the time when we get the production of goods. The Government set itself to formulating a working plan for 1946. The right hon. Gentleman had something to say about plans and controls, but, although one may have to plan without having all the data, it is better than having no plan at all. We must make some kind of economic forecast. 'We cannot get certainties, but we can get targets to work to. We can get estimates, but they cannot be quite as precise as in wartime for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and that is why there are controls. We have relaxed a great number of controls and, in particular, we are not directing labour except


in certain instances. Over the whole field of labour there has been a great relaxation of controls. I do not believe anybody suggests that the Government should endeavour to control labour in exactly the same way as it was controlled in the war, but we can make our forecasts and guide, as far as we can, industry into the channels which are most necessary in the national interest.
I was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Statistical Digest which we have issued, and I think it will be realised that the Government are trying to give this House and the people of this country as much information as possible. I believe hon. Members will find it is a mine of information. It was suggested that it might be a brickfield for the Opposition, who might pick out from it things to throw at us. I do not mind that; they are perfectly entitled to do so. but it is just as well that people should have full information. I remember very well when I entered the War Cabinet that we found there was not, at that time, an adequate statistical survey so that we could see how our munitions and labour and everything were going. The Statistical Office did a very fine work. A number of people took part in it. We gradually got such a publication that we could see at a glance how we were progressing. It was a valuable yardstick., and we are trying to do the same for peace time. This first venture, I hope, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, will be improved and added to, as our wartime yardstick was added to, and I think it brings together a great many tables and facts which formerly have been scattered in various publications.
We set about reviewing the whole situation, and the first job we had to do was to try to see what our total resources of manpower were; we really embarked on this project in what is really a new way of attacking the problem. We attacked it from the point of view of manpower rather than of finance—our human resources rather than our financial resources. The forecast was that by the end of 1946, through the gradual process of demobilisation and change-over, the total manpower in the United Kingdom able and willing to work—men and women civilians and Servicemen—would amount to 20,000,000. That compares with.20,970,000 in December, 1945, and some: 19,750,000 in 1939. The fall in 1946,

compared with 1945 is due to the retirement from industry of women and old people.
The next step was for all the Departments, representing defence, exports, building, home consumption, transport and new industrial development to estimate and state what their requirements would be in manpower for 1946. There again requirements are not so rigid as during the war. Some could give exact figures, or practically exact figures, others only estimates and targets. Then we had to put together the figure of available manpower and the demands of Departments which represent the various activities of the national life and see how they fitted. What we found, of course, was that for what we wanted to do our manpower was insufficient. We then had to set about to see how to cover this deficit. In fact, seeing the amount of cloth available we had to see what kind of a coat we could produce.
The Defence White Paper is an example of what we had to do. Everybody who knows anything of Service Ministries will know that what they get eventually, is never what they ask. There had to be a cutting down, a consideration of what our responsibilities were, and then some drastic cutting down, and that now appears, the December figure being 1,100,000 trained men, and a figure of 500,000 men still working on production for the Services. We should like to get the figures lower, but these have been worked over with the greatest economy, and, as I have said before, it is not a very easy world in many places just at the moment. The number we leave in munitions is the number that is necessary to provide for war- potential. It cannot be run down to nothing. We learned that lesson after the last war. After providing for the Fighting Services there remained the forecast of 18,300,000 men and women available at the end of 1946 for all our civil work for the export industry. That was out manpower. I should say, there is a temporary alleviation—it can only be temporary—of which we are making as much use as we can, namely in the use of prisoners of war from Germany in agriculture and so forth.
Then we had to decide on the allocation. We had to adopt certain principles. The first thing was that many desirable projects put forward, desirable in themselves, desired perhaps by some section,


had to be postponed because they had a lower degree of priority than others. They were examined very carefully. Our general principle was, first of all to hold back the less essential schemes; secondly, to push on with those essential to ordinary life or the recovery of industry; thirdly, to hold back in areas of labour shortage; and fourthly, to push on rapidly in areas showing unemployment, that includes particularly those areas that were called "depressed areas "before the war. In those areas, a great deal of war-work was put in, but inevitably with the cessation of war-work pockets of unemployment are beginning to show themselves, and schemes are already completed or approved to provide new work for about 178,000 in those areas, and further proposed schemes will provide work for another 102,500 in those areas. As a consequence of new labour going into those areas, subsidiary occupations will naturally get more busy. Already, 190 new factory schemes for those areas have been licensed, and no are already built or building today. That is an example of she putting into operation of the principles I have laid down.
On certain economic fronts there could be no cut. Housing is to get a very big share of the building labour force. Some of the building force is needed for factories, in addition to which there is civil engineering work. Our target, which we hope to reach by the end of 1946, is 1,400,000 in the building and civil engineering industries. It is a very high target. We may not reach it, but we have had to climb from 722,000 in June, 1945, and already it has been raised to nearly 900,000. The second place in which there could be no cut was the. export trade. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised that, in the White Paper on full employment, the export trade was put in the forefront. In making our plans we have assumed the ratification by the legislature of the United States loan. One has to make some working assumption. We all must realise that if we do not get that loan, the position will be even more difficult than it is today, and we shall have to press on even harder with our export drive. We planned on the basis of the loan. Even when we get the loan, it is not a loan to make us lie back and take things easy. The loan is to enable us to work all the harder.
Our target for the labour force directly engaged on exports is 1,285,000 for mid-1946 and 1,555,000 at the end of 1946. That last figure is 405,000 more than in mid-1939. Already, today as many persons are at work on exports as there were in June, 1939. I will say a word later about the need for increased productivity. It is not just numbers that count. Our target for the total value of exports in 1946,£750,000,000, is again a high one and we may not reach it. Owing to the time lag we shall not get payment for more than£600,000,000. That£750,000,000 target compares ' with£258,000,000 in 1944, and£471,000,000 in 1938. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the changes in value, and naturally the volume of exports for this year will earn much less than that amount at the prices ranging in 1938. We have worked exports up to the figure of£57,000,000 recorded in January, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and that is not a static figure. We are hoping to increase that month by month as we get more releases of labour and as we get more releases of factories, as changing over industries get into their stride. We shall not neglect that point which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out.
Even when we have done this there is a heavy deficit on our balance of payment. The figure, which I think the right hon. Gentleman used, is that of£750,000,000, which was used during the Washington negotiations. It is enormous even on that basis. That should only mean that everyone must realise the intensity of the effort if we are to get through this difficult time. The natural inclination of us all was to believe that what we considered normal economic life would return automatically at the ending of the war, but the fact is that this country is paying, economically as well as humanly, very dearly for our victory, particularly in the loss of our foreign investment income of which a big share was paid for our food We therefore have to work harder to import the same amount, and it is no use blinking the fact that the foreign exchange position is grim and difficult. Importation from dollar countries will be very hard without the most energetic efforts. Nevertheless, and again I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, ordinary everyday consumption must be encouraged to rise materially in 1946. It


is perfectly true that you cannot ask people to work harder if they have not got something coming in as a result of their extra work. That applies not only to people here; we have had constant difficulties in the realm of food, where increased food supplies might be available from some areas if we could only get the consumption goods in. We have had to make special efforts to get consumption goods across to the producers
We have none of us, nor has the President of the Board of Trade, ever taken this grim austerity line. On the contrary, we have merely informed people of the grim facts of the situation, namely, that you cannot get all the things you want immediately. We hope, during 1946, to increase the provision of consumption goods to a point very much above 1945, though certainly below 1938. Figures would be misleading, but our hope is that, on the average, consumption goods will be somewhere about halfway back to prewar standards in 1946. That is an all-over estimate, because it will be found that there are shortages here and there. It is well to remember, too, that there is a better distribution today than there was in 1938. The poorest people in prewar unemployment areas are certainly consuming more than they did in 1938
That is the picture. It is a difficult one; we have a hard time to get through. I have described the plans by which the Government are trying to bring together the manpower resources and the requirements of the nation I have not attempted to conceal the difficulties. They are difficulties we foresaw when we were in the middle of the war; in the last Government we were already planning for reconstruction. The broad fact remains that, whatever we do, there is bound to be a gap between what is desirable and what is possible. However well and carefully the estimates are made, however skil fully plans are made by the Government, our ultimate success in getting through the next two years depends on the active cooperation, vigour and energy of all our people.
We are faced with a shortage of manpower. We must see to it that it is used to the best advantage, and that means a changed attitude of mind. For years before the war we were accustomed to having surplus labour on the market, to having a large amount of unemployment, and the existence of that surplus

labour bred in all classes an attitude of mind which must be changed. Less enlightened employers used labour waste-fully; they disregarded modern conceptions of labour management and the provision of amenities. Cheap labour has often been the enemy of technical advance. Historically it is true that it has often been the action of trade unions, in combining and pressing for better conditions, that has made for technical advance. In an era of full employment employers will have to realise that there are not a lot of people waiting for jobs, and those who do not accept proper standards of wages and conditions will go short of labour.

Earl Winterton: The country will then go short of goods.

The Prime Minister: I think not necessarily. Where people find that they cannot get labour they will change their conditions in order to get it. I was going on to say that the workers have also been affected by the existence 0: unemployment. Everybody knows that in certain jobs a man is tempted to say, "When I have finished this job I shall be unemployed." That does not make for full service and work. Therefore, all classes must get away from the old ideas, and realise that we are now going to live in a world of full employment. We must face the tasks of the present era in a new spirit. During the war we all realised the value of every unit of labour. How often in the War Cabinet did we look most anxiously at the very last people who could be pulled out for some form of war service. All that. labour was valuable—it is valuable today.
I think we all realise also that the nation can only be saved if we all do the best we can. If today we want houses, clothes, coal, food, the necessities and amenities of life, we have to realise that we cannot depend on other people doing their best to provide for us unless we are ourselves rendering the best service we can. It was easier to realise our interdependence during the war, and to realise the importance of our job to other people. The complexity of modern society puts us so far away from other people that it is probably difficult for the industrial worker to realise the importance of the clerk's work, the clerk of the industrial worker's, or the farm worker of the town worker's. Many people do not


realise the work done in a Government office, but, these people have worked very hard.
I think our motto should be to look first of all to see that we are all doing our own job well, and not always thinking that it is the other fellow who is slacking. My appeal today—it was suggested that this speech should be hortative—to all men and women, is to do their best to serve the country in this difficult time of reconstruction just as they did during the war. I am not making any sectional appeal. I ask employers to make the most economical use of the men and women available. Some people still show a tendency to think that only one sort of man can possibly work for them, but in the war we found that all kinds of people who had been rejected were able to do fine work. There must be a changed attitude on that. We must appeal also to employers to do their utmost in organisation—to use their brains, and to use modem science. If we are short of labour, we must use what is available to the best advantage, and we must also use science to save labour. In the past many people—perhaps quite kindly people—thought it was wrong to introduce improvements because they threw people out of work. I do not think that is true today. We are moving towards a society which makes full use of all its improvements.
I ask the workers of every kind, whether employed in production, distribution or clerical labour, to give of their best. I shall not single out one particular lot of people. There are some whose labour it is easy to measure, to say whether they are doing good work or not. Other people one cannot measure quite so easily. Some are, perhaps, held up as examples of slacking just because they happen to be in the public eye. I also make an appeal to older people to stay in industry during this difficult time. We do not want to think too much in terms of "output per man-hour." [An Hon. Member: "Why not?"] Because there is much work which cannot be measured by that yardstick. I would much rather think of "production per nation-year. "I would like this volume to be studied by people as a record of the progress of the nation towards recovery and as showing their share in it. I should like everybody, whether engaged in State or private enterprise, employer 01 worker, to regard him-

self or herself as directly concerned in this task of reconstruction and, as these figures for production come out, to regard them as the score which is being put up by the team to which they belong. should like them to understand that every individual effort has contributed towards reviving our prosperity, just as the efforts of the humblest worker contributed to our victory in war.
National recovery does not depend just upon the numbers of workers; it depends upon securing continuity of work. I am well aware that many people are tired. I know very well the hardships that many are enduring. I know, particularly, how tired and worried many women are, particularly housewives. They have done a great job in the war, troubled with food anxieties, housing difficulties, shortage of clothing and of household goods; but the removal of the material basis of their troubles can only be effected by the work of the people of this country. I also appeal to everyone not to increase those troubles by suggesting that they are easily remediable, and that they are just the faults of the Government, the.employers or the workers. I have no doubt that all three—Government, employers and workers-could do much better; but if they were all perfect, they could not alter the broad facts of the situation as we find them at the end of this tremendous struggle. I am confident that that appeal will not be made in vain.
I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot was a little gloomy. I am sometimes inclined to be gloomy myself, but I have complete faith in the steadfastness, vitality and resolution of our people. We have great resources—industrial capacity, machinery, plant, skill—adaptability and enterprise. Just as, in the war, it took time to mobilise our full strength, so, in this period of reconstruction, the development of our resources to the full cannot be effected in a few months. I want us all to realise, without distinction of political creed—the restoration of the prosperity of this country is not a party matter at all—that we are all engaged in a campaign for prosperity and that it will mean a tremendous amount for this country, the not for this country alone It will mean a great deal to the world.
I believe that this country did an immense service to the world by its example


in wartime. I believe we can do the same in reconstruction. We can show that this old country of ours, with our methods, which you can criticise if you like, the methods of a free democracy, can produce results. I ask everyone to join in a campaign for prosperity.

4.55 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel Byers: We have listened to a very moving appeal by the Prime Minister. I am sure that all of us, and the nation, will give to it an adequate and immediate response. I am delighted that we have, at last, had from the Government what amounts to some sort of plan which has been put before this House. I wish we could have had it earlier, but it is important that it should have been made at last. Any Government in modern conditions must accept full responsibility for the economic and social development of the country. That is where the Liberal and Labour Parties are ahead of any other political movement in this country. They accept full responsibility for economic and social development, but that responsibility has not been fully accepted in the past. However much we differ about the methods which we use, we do accept the responsibility. Broadly speaking, one can regard economic development and full employment as the means of building up a sounder system for the people of this country.
If we are to get true economic development, three things are obviously required. The first is a comprehensive plan to guide the resources of private and public enterprise to serve the best interests of the community. The beginning of that plan was explained by the Prime Minister today. The relationship which has to exist between private and public enterprise must be more adequately denned in the near future, if we are to have the best value out of both. Secondly, we must have adequate and flexible machinery for this co-ordination, execution and development of the plan. I do not believe we have it. Thirdly, we must have adequate administrative machinery, which will be entrusted with the development and execution of the decisions of the Government administrative machinery, where the responsibility for decision is delegated to a relatively low level. We want to put an end to the tradition of "Passed to you for approval, please," and "I cannot give

a decision on this, because it has to go to a higher level," and so forth. We have had from the Prime Minister today, the first signs of a beginning of a comprehensive plan. I make an earnest appeal that the country should be kept fully informed on how the Government are developing that plan. We cannot possibly afford merely to have an announcement every six months, stating that manpower has been allocated in such and such a way and that social priorities will be laid down in secret session of the Cabinet.
I stress that point. We found in the Army that we got a much better response from troops going into battle, if they knew exactly what was expected of them and exactly what was being done on every side of them. Thus they were enabled to have a clearer picture. That was one of the great changes that was made during the war, round about 1942, when the ordinary private soldier knew what the intentions of the corps on his right- were. I make a plea to the Prime Minister to see that the country is kept adequately informed of how this comprehensive plan is to be developed. Let us have continuous guidance. I am not asking—heaven forbid—for control and direction, but let us have guidance and the fullest possible information.
I believe that the proper relationship of private and public enterprise working for the common good is vital to the future, and I would deplore, with all the sincerity I can command, the attitude which this Government and the Labour Party—in which I have many friends—have adopted so far as nationalisation is concerned.. There is a tendency to regard nationalisation as a punitive expedition on private enterprise. That is not only wrong; it is throwing into disrepute all the virtues of public ownership. I believe in a great deal of public ownership, but it is futile to think we can carry out nationalisation of certain great industries and services, as a punishment for private enterprise. That throws the whole principle of public ownership, with which in many cases I agree, into disrepute. I hope we shall see an end of that petty-minded attitude towards nationalisation and public ownership. At the same time, we have been considering nationalisation far too much. I should like something to be done about private enterprise, and I should like to see something done about


monopolies. I am not allowed to talk about legislation now, but I should like to know what the Government's intentions are so far as monopolies are concerned. I believe in public ownership of certain basic industries and certain essential ser vices, because I believe that the Government—that is, the nation—must accept responsibility for these things. I do implore Members of the Party opposite not to throw public ownership into disrepute by regarding it as a punitive expedition to be carried out on private enterprise. It is going to make things much more difficult for us when we are in power. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh—

Mr. Kirkwood: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast."

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: The proper economic development of this country is of vital importance to the people of this country, and I am glad to see the Government have accepted responsibility for full employment. The President of the Board of Trade may laugh, but I would remind him that this is the first Government we have had for 20 years which will accept that responsibility in full. It is a landmark in history. The Government must accept the responsibility for increasing the efficiency of production. We must also, I believe, have a wages policy. That is a thing about which, I think, the Government are very weak indeed. We have now embarked upon social security. These four things, full employment, increased efficiency of production, a wages policy and social security, will give us the chance of developing a nation of which we can all be proud. But all these things are linked together, because social security will break if there is any widespread unemployment. That will break the scheme. Similarly, we must have a proper high wages policy so that people can afford to pay their contributions. We cannot get the high wages we want unless we get increased efficiency of production.
All these things are linked together, and I would ask the Government to give serious consideration to the wages policy. We had a lamentable display the other night in the Debate on agriculture when the Opposition put a series of questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the. Ministry of Agriculture about a wages

policy. Many of us went away with the impression the Government had no wages policy at all. That is a most important point, 'because the Government are 'becoming, probably, the largest employer in the country. Vast numbers are employed in the Armed Forces, in the nationalised industries, in the Civil Service; and the Government will be the employer of the majority of our people. The wage paid by the Government will set the standard throughout the country. I agree if should be a high and a good standard, but, nevertheless, it is going to be the standard; and I believe that the time has come to reconsider whether the old traditional system of settling wages by a wages board is not, perhaps, inadequate to modern times. I do not know but I think it ought to be reviewed.
I believe that if we are not to have direction of labour—and I am glad we are not—then there must be some inducement to get labour to move from industry to industry and area to area. How are we to do that without a wages policy? I do not think it can be laughed off by a Parliamentary Secretary in an agricultural Debate. We have had a statement from the Prime Minister of the sort of plan which is to be developed, but we have not been shown any new machinery which is being institute! to achieve the co-ordination of the various Departments which are to execute the plans. This is a very worrying thing, because if the food Debate showed nothing else,' it showed a lack of co-ordination between the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Ministry of Labour. Certainly to those who knew only as much as Members of the House of Commons did, it appeared there had been a tremendous lack of co-ordination.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on the control of investment, said that the whole of the economic development was to be carried out, as to financial control by the Treasury, and as to physical control by the Government Departments. I am wondering who will coordinate these two things. Are we to get any coordination at all? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Government had turned down the idea of a national investment board; that they had gone past that stage, and that it was a matter for the Cabinet and that the Cabinet would accept the responsibility. I submit that it is a farce that 20 tired


men, overburdened with departmental duties, can now be charged with the task of coordinating the execution of a comprehensive plan like this. Is it not time we got rid of the old Government machinery, which was designed for Conservative laissez faire, a sort of machinery not geared to the tempo of modern government? Is it not time we had a small inner Cabinet of five Ministers not overburdened with departmental duties, men who, as Sir William Beveridge said in one of his books, have the leisure to think. I am indeed afraid that we have not at the present moment the men in the Cabinet who have the time to think. If anything proves the attitude of this Cabinet towards this matter more clearly than anything else, it is the fact that when the President of the Board of Trade goes to India, the Lord President of the Council is called upon to do his job. They are the only two men in the Cabinet with less Departmental duties than the others, and when one goes away, the other is saddled with additional responsibilities. I know that this is a matter for the Cabinet, but the people of this country are not inspired with confidence that 20 Departmental Ministers, meeting in Cabinet, can coordinate the economic development of this country.

The Prime Minister: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that the Lord President of the Council has heavy Departmental duties?

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: No, I said that. he was one of the two men who had no heavy Departmental duties; but when the President of the Board of Trade goes to India, it is from these two men who have not Departmental duties that you choose one and give him Departmental duties for a short time. This is surely an opportunity for obtaining two or more Cabinet Ministers—one to do the job of the President of the Board of Trade while he is away; and the other to help with the thinking, if, indeed, anyone is doing the thinking. The Cabinet should seriously consider whether the machinery for the coordination of Government Departments is adequate. I am extremely worried as to the financial side. The Treasury have far too much control, and on the physical control side there is not nearly enough co-ordination.
Finally, if we are to serve the people of this country as they deserve, it is vital

that the whole of the Government administrative machinery should be overhauled immediately with a view to doing three things. First, to put first-class people into the responsible jobs. That will necessarily mean that salaries and conditions of service will have to be improved. I am sure that is essential. Secondly, I believe that every member of the Civil Service should be told exactly what his Government Department is doing, as far as broad policy is concerned. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade is one of the few people who is doing that. I do not know whether 1 am correct or not, but I implore Ministers to keep their civil servants fully informed of the broad lines on which Government Departments are to be developed. Thirdly, I should like to see the responsibility delegated so that people can take a decision at a much lower level, with the knowledge that they will be supported fully by the Ministers and the principal civil servants concerned. I would like to see— I would have expected to see from a Labour Government, and a progressive Government— every Minister overhaul his own administrative Department in order that it may serve the country to the best advantage. The whole of our administrative machinery should be overhauled immediately, otherwise it will break, and we cannot afford to let it break. We have tremendous things to do in the next few years. If the Government refuse to overhaul the Government machinery, both administrative and coordinative, and to take a fresh look at these problems, we may well not achieve full employment, and we may land our people in an economic and social mess. That is the last thing which I, as a Liberal, want to see happen to the people of this country. I do not mind about the Labour Party, but I do mind about the people of this country.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I listened with great interest to the Prime Minister and also to the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). Speaking for the engineers, Ican say that they can both rely on the engineer doing his best in the future as he has done in the past. Both the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for "Aldershot have made an appeal today that the workers should work harder, and that the workers should give of their best. I agree with


that; and if the workers give of their best, then there is nothing but the best good enough for the workers. I agree that we must have increased production in every branch of industry. My experience, which goes back over 53 years as a member of my union, is that the engineer is a very valuable worker in this country, and he has rendered yeoman service.
But I am driven to ask myself what happened after the last war. There were posters all over the country. The slogan was: "To get more, the workers must give more. "On these posters were photographs of outstanding labour men, including the president of my own union, Jimmy Brownlie, and Johnny Clynes, calling on the workers to work as they had never worked before. We had Jimmy Thomas, the then political secretary of the N.U.R, going round the country assuring the workers that Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy, and that they would have to accept a reduction in wages. My reply to him at that time was that he could not frighten the working class by talking to them about bankruptcy. The worker is always on the verge of bankruptcy. There is no denying the fact that we did work, and we did produce. What did we get? Well, I know what I and my comrade the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) got. We got battered down in the streets with policemen's batons, and not only that—we were gaoled.
There are no finer workers under the sun than the British workers. British engineers were thrown out on to the streets by the tens of thousands. We were called on to give of our best and to work hard, and what was the result? It meant the harder we worked, the sooner we were on the streets. Such was our reward.. Wages were reduced to a starvation level; the wages of the Clyde-side engineers were below the level of those of the scavengers of the streets of London. That was all we got for our great effort. We have now produced another type of Government, and no one is better pleased than I am that we have been able to do so. I am a loyal supporter of the Government and I am delighted with the part that they are playing. They are doing exactly what the workers expect them to do, and if they continue to act along those lines the workers will never let them down. They

are in there for keeps. We have produced another type of Socialist Government which is all for nationalisation, but I also know that we have the same old employers, out for profit at the expense of the worker. [Interruption.] Although the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is not as young as he used to be, he may have to work yet—

Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kirkwood: Only last week we Members of Parliament who are engineers met our executive, and they gave us a report of their interview with the Minister of Supply and his two understudies. Our executive is anything but satisfied with the approach the Ministry of Supply is making to meet the situation today. We are all agreed on both sides of the House that what is wanted today is increased production. We engineers are prepared to do the same as we did in the days immediately after Dunkirk. We are prepared to increase output considerably not for the duration of a few weeks, but for very much longer, on condition that the proposals submitted by the engineering union and endorsed by the trade unions embracing the shipbuilding and engineering industries, are acceptable to the Ministry of Supply. If the best is wanted out of the workers, there has to be a slum clearance of the shipyards and many of the engineering shops, which are a disgrace. That does not apply to all-engineering shops. We have two firms, with which two hon. Members listening to me now are connected, and I have done my best to try to get others to follow them. I refer to Lucas's of Birmingham, and Kendall's of Grantham. But, there has been a very poor response. It will require to be forced upon them as has everything we have which we cherish today, for we had to fight for it from the ruling classes of this country. We want our workshops made more attractive. Just as the worker is demanding a better house in which to live, so we demand that the conditions in the workshop shall be in harmony with, the home life.
When I finished my apprenticeship as an engineer on the Clyde, well over 50 years ago, one was thought to be well blessed if when he got married he had a two-apartment house. The majority of the houses of those days were of one apartment. I would have forgiven the landlords and the ruling classes if they


had not known better, but look at my native city There were slums all over the place until we Socialists arrived and cleaned out many of them. Look at the west end of Glasgow and see the beautiful houses that were built by the ruling classes. There were no eight feet high ceilings for the working class. They condemned us to bad conditions, but the advent of the last war and the arrival of Dr. Addison on the scene brought a great change, and we were given a new outlook. We demanded a higher standard, and the change from the one-apartment to the three-apartment house meant that the wife had to get a "three-apartment dress "and a three-apartment hat." The children also required a higher standard of life. The worker today, as a result of what he has seen and experienced, now that his representatives are in control of the country, is demanding an improvement in his standard of living.
When our country was up against it, the rulers of this land were glad to call on my colleagues to assist in the government of the country. They were men who had never had any experience of ruling what is the mightiest Empire under the sun. What has that done? It has taught the worker to see that these so-called Heaven-born rulers are only great as long as the workers are on their knees, but today the workers have risen and are demanding much better conditions. I would like to state the conditions on which engineers intend to enter the campaign for increased production. They are: an eight hour day, a five-day week, and a minimum of£5 a week.

Earl Winterton: Surely, the hon. Member means per day?

Mr. Kirkwood: We want effective workshop committees, which will have a say in all matters affecting their industries. We want a limitation of profits, and all available surplus profits to go back into industry. The Government have a glorious opportunity because, at the time of Dunkirk, the workers of this country proved beyond a shadow of doubt that they are a most valuable asset when they are infused with the idea that they are fighting and working for the good of the community. We must instil into our people, by giving them these conditions, the same spirit of enthusiasm as was shown at the time of Dunkirk. Unless we get a guarantee that those conditions wills

be met, then trade union leaders, the men and women to whom the workers will listen, will do what they can to try and meet their obligations, but they will not succeed if the Government intend to go on in the old orthodox fashion and Ministers continue to smile" complacently.
The Government are up against a problem here, because there will be no photographs of Jack Tanner on hoardings, as there were of James Brownlie, to help exhort the workers to give more production. The workers must have a fifty- fifty representation. They are not coming in cap in hand. That day is past. They. are coming in on an equal footing, and. the sooner the Government realise that the better. At the time of Dunkirk, Beaverbrook—

Earl Winterton: Lord Beaverbrook.

Mr. Kirkwood: Well, the Noble Lord; give him any name you like. He, like every other Minister of Supply we have had up to the end of the war, asked me to use my influence with engineers all over Britain in order to increase production. I was delighted to do so. I remember that when Lord Beaverbrook fell foul of the employers in my presence, not once but many times, he told them, "I want production, and if this request "—he always called it a request, and not a demand—" by the workers is not reasonably met you will have to give in to the workers.'' Beaverbrook— [Laughter]—it is no use joking, because the Labour Party sent Noble Lords to me as well. Lord Beaverbrook caught the enthusiasm of that time, with the result that we beat all records. On different occasions we interviewed shop stewards. We believed that that was not the time for wild words, and we got results. It is because of that experience that I believe that, if the Government take the workers into their confidence, and meet their legitimate demands— [Hon. Members: "Requests."]—they will find that the workers will fall into line, and that the trade union movement of this country will use all their influence, which is very considerable, especially with Members of Parliament, to increase production. Nobody has the ear of the workers as we Members on this side of the Committee, and the trade union officials. It is the bounden duty of the Government to meet the just requests of the trade unions.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has spoken with his usual vigour and eloquence. It was a speech we much enjoyed. He shared with the Prime Minister the same desire to see a certain change of heart in the country, and I would not for one moment underestimate the part which the hon. Member can play in bringing about that change of heart. I want to deal more particularly, however, with the speech of the Prime Minister. He spoke, as he always does, in terms of moderation about this great problem. He made an appeal for a new spirit of cooperation, and he emphasised the need for hard work. It has always been open to a Government to make an appeal of that kind on a broad national basis, and to' seek to enlist the cooperation not only of those who supported them at the Election, but even of those who voted against them. It is no use making one isolated appeal in this House. It is necessary that the Government's policy as a whole should be directed on a national basis. If one wants to get the best out of all sections of society, it is better to avoid those issues which are most likely to divide the community. I do not want now to elaborate that aspect of the matter further.
The subject which we are discussing is the real stuff of politics. It is far removed from the kind of fripperies with which many politicians adorn their speeches at General Elections. The question of manpower is the basic one which all parties have to face. It is not merely a party political issue. The shortage of men would set the boundaries to any policy which any party, whether Conservative or Socialist would pursue if it were in office. I do not want to deal lightly with the appeal which the Prime Minister made, but I should be disguising my real feelings if I did not say that the policy of his Administration is wholly inadequate to the problems which he has set before the House.
There are two aspects of the matter. The first question we have to decide is whether we have got enough men to do the jobs which lie ahead of us, not in a short term transitional period, but during the next four or five years. Have we enough manpower in this country to be

able to carry out the tasks which lie ahead of us? The second question is whether we are using those men to the. maximum advantage and with the maximum efficiency. If the answer to either of those questions is "No," then we shall be condemned, not for a short transitional period, but for a long period, to a standard of living substantially below that which existed in this country in 1938. We shall live in what will in those circumstances, perhaps inevitably, be a kind of organised slump. That is a very sombre picture. I do not want to be either pessimistic or optimistic, but to try to respond to the appeal of the Prime Minister that we should be realistic. But it is no good having in the House Debates of this kind, in which we merely hear the rival claims of one user of manpower set against the claims of another user of manpower, the claims of one industry set against another, the argument whether we should cut more out of the Forces in order to get them back into industry, the claims of capital against consumer goods, or of the home market against the export market. The hard fact remains that if, in fact, the over-all total of manpower is short, we are trying to do an impossible task. We are trying to make up a jigsaw puzzle in which one of the pieces is missing.
Obviously, in those circumstances, the first task of the Government, which I think the Prime Minister did with some considerable skill to-day, is to prepare some kind of manpower budget. We are all very grateful for the valuable Monthly Digest which has been produced and which enables us to see some of the facts of the problem. But a manpower budget, of course, is not an answer to the question. The right hon. Gentleman said, "We shall have 20,000,000 men available for employment at the end of 1946."He then said that there would be 18,300,000 available outside the Forces, which is an inadequate number. But if those men are merely listed for agriculture, consumer goods, capital formation, and the rest of it, it is still only a paper figure. What the right hon. Gentleman failed to say—I hope some Member of the Government will remedy the omission later—is how, having put those figures on paper, the men will be got into the industries in which they are required. That is the real problem on which we want an answer from the Government.
I hesitate to talk about manpower budgets. It is extremely difficult for a Back Bencher to do so, even with the Monthly Digest at his disposal, but I will try to deal with one or two figures. I understand the position to be this. The Prime Minister said that, at the end of 1946, there will be 250,000 more people available for work than in 1939. There were 19,750,000 in 1939, and there will be 20,000,000 at the end of 1946. The 250,000 is the margin with which we have to play. It seems to me that, against that number, we have already overdrawn to a very considerable extent. Our Armed Forces, estimated now at 1,100,000, would in any event be, say, 500,000 more than they were in 1938. The men employed in the Government service, according to the Monthly Digest, are 315,000 in excess, and I do not think that figure is likely to become less as legislation goes through. Shall I put it at 500,000, when the nationalisation programme is more or less complete?
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the number employed in the export trades would increase by 405,000, but if we are to have the increase in exports which the President of the Board of Trade, very properly, requires, it has been estimated in the "Economist" that, even with a 20 per cent, increase in productivity—and heaven knows, there is no sign of that increase at the moment—we shall need 750,000 more people in the export trade, and for capital formation, building houses, re-equipping the coal mines, and the rest, another 750,000 My addition is notoriously inaccurate, but I work it out as being 2,500,000 against a balance of 250,000. From where are we to get the 2,250,000 that remain? Those 2,250,000 can come only from the people who would normally be making consumption goods in this country. That means that everybody has to be content with fewer consumption goods.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head. If the Government can show that these men will in some way be available—and the Prime Minister failed to do so—I very much hope they will do so before this Debate is concluded.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that during the

war there were fewer consumption goods than before the war, but that, nevertheless, millions of people enjoyed more consumption goods during the war than they enjoyed before the war?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not want to enter into that argument now. If the total number of people making consumption goods in this country is to be 2,000,000 fewer than in 1938, one can dismiss the idea that we are going to have a higher standard of living.

Mrs. Nichol: Why?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will endeavour to explain to the hon. Lady. If there are fewer people making these goods, there will be fewer goods.

Mrs. Nichol: No.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I know there is the argument about mechanisation increasing productivity, but I should have thought the point was reasonably elementary. It seems to me that the real danger of the situation is that there is, in some respects, almost a vested interest in trying to keep that sort of situation in existence. A great many people are very happy to see a chronic shortage of workers in this country. The workers themselves—I do not say this in a critical spirit—will obviously profit in some sense from a shortage, because they hope that the shortage will lead to higher wages. In the present situation even the employers benefit to some extent, because they know that at least they will be able to sell whatever goods they produce. The position has some advantages because they can always come to this House and talk about the difficulties of the people and the shortages which everybody is suffering, and the Government at least have this knowledge, that in no conceivable circumstances are they likely to have any kind of recurrence of that mass unemployment which occurred before the war. They feel, possibly quite rightly, that if they can avoid that at all costs they have a reasonable chance of a favourable verdict at the next General Election. In those circumstances there is a great tendency on all sides to try and maintain the situation in which we have a chronic shortage of manpower.
I know that the hon. Lady and one or two others think that if you have this shortage you can get over it by the introduction of machinery, increasing your


methods of production, and so on. I am not going to decry the possibility of increasing production in that way, but I do say that machines are really no substitute for men. In the coal industry at the present moment what we want, of course, is new machinery, but we also want a very great many more men. It is not just putting coal cutting machines at the coal face that is required, it is the driving of new roads, the sinking of new shafts, and I do not think that anybody could really imagine that it will be possible to bring about that kind of reorganisation with the manpower which is at present in the coal mining industry. Moreover, even if the machinery is installed it has to be used, double or even treble shifts may have to be worked, and it has been found, certainly in the United States, that the introduction of machinery leads to the creation of more jobs rather than less.
I want to know—if I right have the attention of the President of the Board of Trade for one moment—what is the Government view about the shortage of manpower. Is it merely transitional or is it permanent? The figures I have put forward would seem to show that it is permanent. If it is, what do the Government intend to do about it? Are they encouraging the Poles to leave this country as the Prime Minister said the other day, and, if so, why? I should have thought that there were in this country at this moment jobs for every citizen here and for as many others as we could conceivably get to come in from outside. One thing that would help the coal industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said the other day, would be 100,000 Polish miners in the pits. I think that would give us the coal we want, not only for our industries and domestic consumers here at home, but for the export trade we so badly need in order to get both food and dollars. I cannot see the sense in complaining in Debate after Debate of a shortage of men on the land, or a shortage of domestic servants, or, as I see in the Press today, that the Minister of Health cannot give a target for the housing programme because of a shortage of men, or that exporting firms have their order books full but cannot get any men to make the exports. I should have thought that, instead of turning men away from this country at the present moment, the policy of the Govern-

ment would have been to turn every British Consul in the world into a kind of talent scout. We should try to get these men in, paying their passages to this country, even bribing them to come and work in the mines.

Mr. Mikardo: Would the hon. Member please convey this argument, that we ought to be using to the full the aliens in this country, to his Conservative friends in Hampstead, who are conducting a continuous agitation against the presence of aliens in this country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not know that I have any Conservative friends in Hampstead, but I hope that I shall have. If anybody is saying, "Turn the aliens out," then obviously what I have said is the reverse and I should not agree with them. I say, "Keep them in and use them, and get as many more as possible."
I know there is an unhappy history behind the strike-breaking in the Scottish coalfields many years ago, and I am not going back over all that, but I think it could be done much better. This does not seem the same sort of proposal at all. If I introduced the Polish miners into the coalfields of this country I would make every one of them join the Miners' Federation and give that Federation a closed shop. If that were done I do not think there would be the slightest reason why it should depress the standard of living or pull down the wages of any worker in this country.

Major Cecil Poole: May I ask the hon. Member why he should single out the Miners' Union for a closed shop? Is he prepared also to extend that to every other industry, or, if not, will he say why not?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would willingly debate the question of a closed shop but it would not be in Order for me to do it now. I was dealing with the particular case of the mining industry and suggesting a means to meet their perfectly reasonable objections.
What is the view of the Government about the Armed Forces? We are told we are to have 1,100,000 in the Armed Forces. It may be brought down possibly in a year or two's time, but in the un certain state of the world—

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member


is not in Order in discussing the Armed Forces.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Very well, I will leave that subject. I was merely going to suggest that the question should be considered of employing foreign troops to get over the difficulty. I think I should be in Order in saying that the Prime Minister referred to the figure which was to be allocated out of his total manpower budget to the Armed Forces, and to say that J thought that that figure would be an intolerable burden to this country over a long period. I should like to see some steps taken to lighten this by the employment of Polish troops or a foreign legion or something of the kind After all, there are plenty of men in the world today who have no trade but fighting, and many of them would be glad to assist in that respect.
I turn now to the second part of the problem, which is how, having got the men, one seeks to get the maximum efficiency. The Prime Minister made an appeal for hard work. I remember that at the Election the Conservative Party also talked a lot about hard work, but I would remind hon. Members opposite that it is not always a popular cry, for we lost the Election. But then, as the Prime Minister apparently realises now, to lose an election is not necessarily to be wrong. I am not accusing the Prime Minister of this country of having painted glowing pictures of a new paradise in his election manifesto, but one of the difficulties which I would ask the Government to face up to is, that over a period of years the type of propaganda that has gone out from the Socialist Party has tended to persuade people that by some sort of economic trick you could get over the curse of Adam—that
 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.
I am not suggesting that individual Members of Parliament go about saying this kind of thing, but the fact remains that there are quite a lot of people in this country, perhaps the more illiterate sections of the electorate, who really believed that, by some miracle in the vaults of the Bank of England or by doing something about the directors' fees, it would be possible to swell the wages of the workers. These things do exist. If we are to change that attitude we have—and it applies to all parties in this country— to co-operate. It is in the interests of all

parties; it is a national issue that the principle of hard work should be accepted. Hon. Members opposite believe that, if men work for the State, it is a great and glorious occupation. I say that is a fine idea. I am perfectly prepared to say to a man in. the nationalised coalmining industry, "There you are working in your great national industry with the State behind you. That is a fine ideal and you ought to put your back into it." But cooperation has to be a two-way business. What about the 80 per cent. of industry which at the moment is under private enterprise? Are the Government prepared to say to their supporters in the country, "Stop this ridiculous talk about the evils of working for a profit motive "? If not, it is really rather a waste of time to make appeals in the House of Commons about national approach and co-operation on all sides, and so on.
With regard to productivity, I wish I thought the Government really believed in it, but I do not believe they really have much faith in the idea. Let me take one industry as an example, the dockers. We have just decasualised dock labourers, and the dock industry of this country is riddled with every kind of restrictive practice imaginable. There are cases where you have six men working on a grab where two could be employed, or eight men working on a truck where two could be employed—this in a time of great manpower shortage. When we decasualised the dock industry, some of us on these benches tried to persuade the Minister of Labour at least to have an investigation into these evils and restrictions on output. We got nowhere, and all these practices are going on today in exactly the same way as they went on in the years of 1929 and 1933, or at any period of depression.
With regard to coal, there is a lot of talk about a five-day week and a seven-hour shift. [An Hon. Member: "Why not? "] I do not say why not, I only say there is a lot of talk going on about it. But there is little talk about the need for double-shift working, and if you are to get machines down the pit you have to work them to the maximum capacity. It is no good the Prime Minister saying that the ageing labour force in the mining industry is the cause of the trouble, when we have been told by the Minister of Fuel and Power that, in fact, more young men are coming into the. industry than


old men are going out. It must be a labour force which is getting younger; you cannot have it both ways. In all these things it seems to me the Government are approaching the matter with the same outlook that perhaps any Party might have approached production in 1933.

Mr. Kirkwood: Before the lion. Gentleman leaves that point, will he explain just what he means by running the mines at double-shift? Where can we get the men to run that double-shift?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have just explained that you want to get some Polish miners into the mines. That is one answer.

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Gallacherrose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance of speaking later. Let me take housing as an illustration of the approach to these things. Suppose there was a really up-to-date town council in this country—I am prepared for the purpose of argument to suppose that there was—which really wanted to get on with the job of housing. Incidentally it seems an extraordinary thing that one should have 40,000, 50,000 or 60,000 people living in a provincial town in this country unable to house themselves; it is an extraordinary verdict on civilisation. But suppose at this moment that town council should say, "Get rid of these difficulties. Appeal for voluntary workers." Then suppose the men came out and prepared the sites; suppose the Boy Scouts started putting up prefabricated houses, suppose the W.V.S started making the tea, instead of the building labourers who number one for every two skilled workers. Suppose that approach was tried, what a shocking thing it would be, a violation of building labour and all the rest of it. I know full well what is the reason for the Government's difficulties in this matter. The basis of their policy really is fear; they are afraid of going back to some sort of mass unemployment and, because they are afraid of unemployent, they do not want any extra men in this country. They do not want to run any risks, they are frightened. They want to perpetuate at all costs a condition of chronic labour shortage, even though it means a steadily declining standard of living in the process.
If we do that, what we are really doing is to try to tackle the problem of 1950

with the ideas and policy and outlook of 1930, and I think we are doomed to disaster if we follow that course. I am not prepared to see this country slide into a kind of steady, respectable decay. I feel that we on this side of the House should not be prepared just to sit back and watch, without some kind of protest, appeals for productivity being made on the other side when, in point of fact, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are always prepared, every day and every month, to sacrifice the larger hopes of adventure and expansion and enterprise on the altar of their own security.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Cobb: It is a matter of some regret to me, that I do not see the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) in his place, because I want to follow him on a few remarks he made in his speech. One thing he said was that we should not pay so much attention to facing the future, we should face the present. I would have liked to ask him, is it not necessary in facing even the present, to do some planning, and in facing the future should we not do some long-term planning? Further, he said that the goods were not available to act as incentives to the workers. The cause, I suggest, is low output per man hour, due to out-of-date plants and out-of-date factories from which it is impossible to get a high output per man hour or use our labour to the best advantage. The third thing he said was that we have not enough exports, and he would like to see them rise still further. I would have liked to inform him that there are goods in this country at the moment, waiting for export, and we are prevented from exporting them, because of the patent machinations of some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. International patent cartels are, at this moment, preventing goods from being exported from this country, and I would commend this point particularly to the attention of the Government.
I turn to the question of exhorting our workpeople to greater effort and I suggest that this is only a temporary palliative. Will it do any good, and to what will it lead, to exhort them to greater output, in many cases from out-of-date factories, out-of-date machinery and in some cases from places that can only be termed industrial slums? In too many places, they


are being exhorted to do this from factories which are still under incompetent management. The workers under such conditions will only treat these exhortations with scorn, while those in efficient organizations—and there are, thank goodness, some efficient organisations in this country—are already on the road to high output. I suggest that the question before us really is the effective use of labour. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) was asking what we are going to do to get more labour. The answer is the effective use of the labour we have, and if he had worked on the floors of the workshops of this country he would have a better appreciation of that point.
Our total labour force cannot exceed 20 million people in the postwar world and we have to organise these people for the maximum output per man hour. I know the Prime Minister decried too much emphasis on output per man hour. He asked us, if I understood him correctly, to look at the national product, but surely the national output is the sum of all our individual outputs per week or per month or per annum. Therefore I do net apologise for mentioning the question of output per man hour. Is it not a fact that the output per man hour in many American factories, is double that of factories in this country? Do not let us forget where the responsibility for this lies. It lies with the industrial and political leaders who are represented on the benches opposite and who led this country for the 25 years preceding the war. They have no right whatsoever to talk about misuse of labour. Their ideas were based on cheap labour, the unemployment pool and out-of-date machinery. There is an old Yorkshire saying of which I am reminded every time I look at the Opposition—" Clogs to clogs." The hon. and right hon. Members opposite are the living epitome of that saying. Their grandfathers fashioned the workshop of the world, but those of the present generation all but put it into liquidation. That is what we have to put right, and we are expected to do it in six months—this mess they got us into over the past century.
We have to reorganise our resources to make the greatest use of our workers. To this end I would commend to the Government three things. We may have the best workers, the best technicians,

the best factories, the best plants but we will not get efficient output if the management is bad. There are far too many managements which are not so goad as they should be. We have to promote the best man for the job. I would like to see more men promoted from the floor of the shop, men who know the job from A to Z. That has not been done by supporters of the party opposite and their industrial associates to the extent to which it should have been done.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I should like to ask the hon. Member, was he promoted himself in the firm in which he worked in recent years?

Mr. Cobb: Yes, as a matter of fact I was, but largely due to my own efforts and no great thanks to private enterprise. I know a little more than the hon. and gallant Member may imagine about the methods of private enterprise, and if he would like to challenge me on it, I will tell him a few more things about it. We should cut out nepotism in industry. I would like to see production made a profession and a more progressive attitude adopted to new methods by the right hon. Gentlemen and their industrial associates. I would like to see a more progressive attitude towards new plant and machinery, towards research and towards special training for management. I question whether it would not be better if some of the directors sitting on the opposite benches did not see that their managers were chosen to a great extent from people trained in the universities. I do not want to see too much of that but it should be given some attention. Many of these problems are in the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite and their industrial associates and it will be very difficult for us to influence private industry to the extent which is necessary to put these things right.
I would also like to see improved relations between labour and management and better training of our workpeople. The question of incentives should be dealt with. We are living in a new world in which we have to face up to full employment and its problems. We want new thought and new study of these. I desire to see workers taken into the confidence of the management to a greater extent and the encouragement of our workpeople to make suggestions. Those suggestions should be given better attention and consideration than they have some-


times been given. I want to see team work in the factories developed to a greater extent, but I will admit that labour must operate the machinery which is available to the optimum output possible. Our standard of life depends on an increased output per man-hour and labour and management have to work together to this end.
Thirdly, I would commend to the Government in tackling this thorny and difficult problem the need for more scientists and technicians in industry. This would lead to something which in the past has been neglected to a great extent. More applied research. With additional, scientists and engineers better methods would be worked out and adopted, for it is on these people that we have to rely for better methods We have to depend on more scientists and engineers for better plant and machinery. I would like to see more technicians on the floor of the shop. I do not want to see trained technical people coming into industry and being poked into offices. I would prefer to see them actually working in the shop at practical problems. That is where many of their problems lie. On the question of provision of scientists and technicians I would mention the increase of foreign control of industry in this country and ask the Government to investigate to what extent it is coming under foreign control. What happens to scientists when a company comes under foreign control? From the capitalist point of view it is very often efficient when this happens and becomes part of an international organisation for research to stop in this country and go abroad. The suction effect by industry on the universities for scientists is thereby decreased, and this matter is urgently in need of investigation.
How can we get more labour for production? I suggest that the Government should look in two places. I am somewhat perturbed about black market operations. I have studied the figures and cannot make them quite tie up, although my efforts at addition are in fact no better than those of the hon. Member for Monmouth. I ask myself, Where are the demobilised Servicemen going? They are not all going back into industry. There is some indication, although I cannot prove it, that they are in black

market or grey market operations, while we want them in productive industry.

Major Poole: With all due respect I think the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) has made a very serious allegation. I think he ought to give some evidence for a statement like that, which is a very grave reflection.

Mr. Cobb: I am not making any allegations. I am saying that the matter ought to be investigated because it is being bandied about in the City of London. 1 suggest the Government could find some of the labour required for production in distribution. There is not enough known about distribution costs, nor their effect on production. We do not know enough about the effect of this on our living standards. The Tory political and industrial regime kept us in ignorance of these facts. No research has been done on this. For every pound spent in the interwar years on production research and original research we did not spend twopence on distribution. But the indications are that in 1938, out of every four people working in this country, two were producing. It is not strictly accurate to say they were productive, but they were working in factories, or in extractive industries, or in agriculture. But it is a fact that only two of them could be strictly classed as productive. Of the remaining two one was distributing and the other was providing services of one kind or another. The latest complete figures there are on this point are those of 1931, and it is urgently necessary to bring these figures up to date so that we can ensure that for some years to come labour on distribution is kept to a minimum, so that those engaged on production rise to a maximum.
Too large a part of the selling price of goods consists of distribution margins, which leads to high prices, curtailed demand, poor factory load, high production costs and lower living standards. T suggest that the Government have to grasp this nettle of distribution costs firmly. That is where the hon. Member for Monmouth can find a large amount of the labour for which he is looking. Thus we must allocate resources between production and distribution just as we must allocate resources between capital and consumer goods. But the statistics to enable us to do this are entirely lacking. We require scientific methods, as opposed to the old Tory "hunch," which has to


go by the board for good and all. We require new vision, new methods and new men. All these are required if we are to bring our industries out of the wilderness of inefficiency into the promised land of high output per man hour, flowing with cheap and plentiful goods of high quality and usefulness We have to increase our output per man hour. On this depends a higher living standard for our people.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Kendall: I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade is not here as I feel compelled to refer to him many times. I think the whole House will agree that the Prime Minister's speech was one of full sincerity, and everyone will agree that the appeal he made was a genuine appeal for the good of the nation. I think that the nation as a whole will respond to that appeal, and respond very generously. But it seems to me that the Prime Minister might have taken to task some of his Ministers. It is not all private enterprise that is bad; it is not everyone who runs a business who is a bad employer. Yet, from time to time, we find Ministers saying—indeed I have heard the President of the Board of Trade himself say so—that some of the evils of industry have come about because all industries have not been nationalised. He said that the other day in the Debate on the Trade Disputes Act—that there would not have been strikes if we had had full nationalisation, or words to that effect. I suggest that the Prime Minister, in making this appeal, might say, once and for all, how far nationalisation of industry is to go, and when. And if it be true to say that when the present nationalisation programme is fairly complete, there will still be 80 per cent. of the industries of this country run by private enterprise, then for goodness sake let the Government and all its Ministers, encourage private enterprise just a little.
I thank most sincerely the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who paid a tribute to my firm. I say to him that all the time we shall try to do better and better by the folk who work in our factories. But it is awfully difficult, with the various conditions laid down for us by the various Departments, to make progress and really stimulate the production for which the Prime Minister has called. We are willing to do it; we are willing to work harder and harder than ever before, but we want

some help, and we have a right to go to the Government, to the Prime Minister and his Ministers who make this appeal, and say, "Help us a little, encourage us. We are not all bad, we are not all wicked, and we can do a job of work. We have done it in the past." I am not talking about monopolies and that kind of concern, but of the rank and file of the employers in the country, the decent people, who are very close to their workers. The hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) suggested that there is a gulf between workers and employers as a whole. It is not so. I am very close to my employees; so are many other employers.

Mr. Cobb: Will the hon. Member allow me to say that I never made any such suggestion? I said that the two ought to be closer in many factories.

Mr. Kendall: The suggestion was that managements as a whole were very bad. The hon. Member said that on two occasions.

Mr. Cobb: I said that there were too many bad managements.

Mr. Kendall: The fact is that there are many good managements—and certainly more good ones than bad ones.

Mr. Cobb: Question.

Mr. Kendall: The point is that it is always the bad ones who are held up and exhibited. In this new Parliament I have not heard any Member of the Labour Party say any good things about the employing class, except for the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs.

Mr. Cobb: If the hon. Member will come up to my constituency, I will show him some rat-infested industrial slums 150 years old, which ought to have been pulled down 100 years ago; and if the hon. Member had been the manager, he would have pulled them down.

Mr. Kendall: There are many employers who would not have allowed such a condition to exist. If the hon. Member would care to come to my constituency and see our factories, I should be glad to show him around.
In reply to the Prime Minister I would say that we shall work as a great team, not one political party against the other, but as folk who mean well, who mean good by our country, folk who will cooperate with the Government in the ter-


rible and difficult tasks they have ahead of them. The Government have all my sympathy, because to accomplish many of the things they have set out to do will take every bit of energy and every bit of co-operation they can get from every class and every kind of society in this country. We are willing to do it, but do not condemn private enterprise all the time. Tell the President of the Board of Trade not to say that the final answer for prosperity for England is full nationalisation, wholesale nationalisation. It is a lot of nonsense. If he believes in this as a private individual, very well, but when he makes his speeches do not let him present such views as representing the Government's views, if those are not the views of the Government. If they are, let the Government say that they intend to nationalise every industry in the country. If they do not mean that, let them say to the industry that is to remain in business, "We shall leave you alone, provided you work hard, and we shall help you." Believe me, industry will come along and not disappoint the Government or the country in any way.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Norman Bower: I wish to speak briefly on only one point, which seems to me to be a point of considerable importance, and one which has not hitherto received its due measure of attention, though it was touched upon by the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers). It is the subject of wages. This is the age of planning. I have always believed in a planned economy. I have never believed in the policy of laissez faire. I subscribe wholeheartedly to the sort of planning adumbrated in the various White Papers issued during the last Parliament under the aægis of the Coalition Government. I believe that a good deal of the planning which is being carried out today is necessary and desirable although I also think that a good deal is unnecessary and likely to be harmful. There is one sphere, apparently, from which planning of any kind is to be rigorously excluded by the Government. That is the sphere of wages So long as there is no attempt to evolve some kind of national wages policy, it is inconceivable to me that the reallocation of our restricted resources of manpower can possibly take place on the

most satisfactory basis from an economic point of view.
Some weeks ago in a Parliamentary Question I asked the Minister of Labour—I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman is present—whether he would consider approaching the trade unions and associations of employers with a view to formulating a national wages policy in conformity with the general Government policy of economic planning and with the White Paper on employment policy. He replied that there was no intention of interfering with what he described as the "well-tried system of collective bargaining in individual industries." It is perfectly true that that is a well-tried system so far as the past is concerned. It has probably worked better than any other system that could have been devised, but I would remind the Minister that, as he himself said at another time in another connection, we are today living in wholly different and unprecedented conditions, quite apart from the present shortage of labour, which may or may not be permanent. Nobody seems to be quite certain about that. The point is that it has now become one of the primary responsibilities of government to promote full employment. We as a community have taken it upon ourselves, quite rightly, to create permanent conditions under which there will always be more jobs available than there will be people to fill them. Under those conditions, it seems to me that if wages are still to be fixed by a process of collective bargaining in individual industries, and on a scarcity basis alone, without reference to any kind of overriding principle, without making any attempt to keep the unsheltered industries, for example, or those industries which are essential in the national interest, in step asregards their wages and conditions, with the sheltered industries, or with those which are less essential in the national interest, then it is hardly conceivable that it will be possible to guide labour into the right channels without employing some form of compulsion.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that could be done without legislation.

Mr. Bower: With great respect, I suggest that legislation is not required for the kind of policy' I am suggesting. It would be possible to formulate a wages


policy for various industries by negotiation, as I am hoping to show, by persuading people that it is necessary. I say this with great respect. I should not have thought that any legislation was required.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member referred to the guidance of labour into the right channels by compulsion.

Mr. Bower: I am only suggesting that labour is not likely to go into the right channels, unless conditions in essential industry are made sufficiently attractive. In my view that can be done without legislation. I was going on to point out that the President of the Board of Trade said a little while ago that there was a distinct reluctance on the part of labour to go back into certain of its pre-war occupations, some of them of an essential character, such as, for example, the cotton spinning industry. I know that whenever any one on this side of the Committee talks about wages he is suspected of wanting to keep wages down generally. Nothing could be further from the fact. My point is that wages in the essential industries must be made more attractive, if necessary perhaps at the expense of wages in the less essential industries. In other words, one section of workers, particularly the most essential section, must not be compelled permanently to subsidise another and possibly less essential section.
Everywhere today in industries which are engaged on producing essential goods or performing essential civilian services, there is the same cry—lack of labour everywhere. It seems to me, now that so many people have already been released from the Armed Forces and the munition industries, that cry cannot be entirely due to the fact that there is no labour anywhere available. There are, of course, many people who are still not free to resume their ordinary normal peacetime occupations. We also have to remember, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, that before the war we were frequently carrying as many as 2,000,000 unemployed. That represented a considerable wastage of our resources, which does not exist at the present time. Although I personally would not be prepared to endorse the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb), that many of these ex-Service men and others who have been released, are going

into the black market, I suggest that the reason for the scarcity of labour in some of the most essential industries is partly to be found in a reluctance on the part of these people to go back into the jobs where they are most needed.
1 can understand the unwillingness of the Government to tackle this problem,. because any interference with the present method of settling wages in the various industries must, to some extent, presumably, weaken the position of the trade unions in that particular sphere. I suggest that, in this age of comparative enlightenment, there are many even more important functions to which the trade unions can turn their hands, such as, for example taking an increasing share in the direction and control of industry and working out, in co-operation with the employers, a policy for increased efficiency and greater production. I therefore urge the Government not to be intimidated by any instinctive 01 initial reaction on the part of either the trade unions or the employers,' both of whom, I feel convinced, can be brought to see reason in this matter if the issues are clearly placed before them.
The only alternatives that I, personally, can see to some real attempt to hammer out a national wages policy, are either permanent shortages of practically everything which the people most need, or the permanent retention of the Essential Work Orders and the direction of labour. It is, of course, grossly unfair and highly unpopular to prevent a man from doing a highly paid job that he wants to do, and to force him to do a much less highly paid job that he does not want to do, simply because he happens to fall into a certain industrial category. I foresee, however, in the absence of some more skilful form of planning in this respect that this highly undesirable type of control will, perforce, become a permanent feature of our peacetime economic system. Therefore, in conclusion, I earnestly urge the Government to think again about this matter and to approach without any further delay the two sides in industry, with a view to evolving a wages policy based on scientific and carefully thought-out principles.

6.39 p.m.

Major Cecil Poole: It was my intention, like other hon. Members who have taken some figures from the Statistical Digest already quoted, to


frame my speech around it. But as one who has a great love of figures, I know full well that figures can be made to mean almost anything that one wishes. Moreover, a number of hon. Members seem to have got into considerable difficulty in this Debate with figures—the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) in particular. I do not think that, in a Debate as wide as this, we can prove very much from those figures, so I have discarded those things that I wanted to say from a purely statistical angle, and instead I propose to raise one small point—small, perhaps, in relation to the whole Debate, but one which is of some importance to the people of this country in relation to the question of getting them back to a larger measure of production.
Before I do so, I would like to refer to two points made by the hon. Member for Monmouth. We always enjoy listening to him, and we are all fully convinced of the deep sincerity with which he speaks in this House. He said one thing, however, which amused me. He said the Tory Party lost the Election because they talked of hard work. I think that is probably true. We, on this side of the Committee, are fully convinced that we won it because we did some hard work. There is all the difference in the world between talking about hard work and getting down to it, and the difference between the two is largely the difference between the approach to these problems of the hon. Member for Monmouth and of some of us on this side of the Committee. It will be conceded by every hon. Member that there is a greater body on this side who have really done some hard work, and, on the other side, a larger proportion of hon. Members who know it only because they read about it in "The Times." I do not make that remark as a reflection on the hon. Member for Monmouth, because I believe he has done quite a lot of hard work in his lifetime. The hon. Member said that the Government's policy was based on fear. Well, it is not, but it would be excusable if it were, because there are so many people on this side who know exactly what unemployment meant to so many homes in this country in those dark years following the last war. Therefore, we could be forgiven if we really had made a very guarded approach to this

problem, and if we went very carefully, so as to see that nothing was done which might make it possible again for that awful spectre of idle hands and homes stricken by poverty, to become a feature of our national life.
On the subject of dividing up the available labour strength, the hon. Member addressed to us, on this side, one question. He said "You will want so many men here, so many men in that industry and so many in the other industry. How do you propose to get them there?" It is said that anyone can ask questions. I invite the hon. Member, and I will give way if he wishes, to tell us how he would propose to get them there. It is easy to ask "How will you do it?" I remind the Committee that the only industries in which there was a shortage of labour were those in which conditions were appallingly bad. As soon as we remove intolerable conditions of work, and make conditions of employment decent, running them parallel with conditions in other industries, we shall have no difficulty in getting men to take employment in those industries. It is the most fantastic suggestion that we on this side desire that there shall be created a permanent labour shortage in this country. It is far more fantastic to suggest that, than it is for us to suggest that many hon. Members on the other side were very pleased to see a surplus of labour in order that it might be used in the bargaining for conditions of labour. I think it is equally preposterous to suggest that, at this period, with over 2,000,000 men remaining in the Services, we should invite people from all the countries in the world to come here and take the jobs of those men before they come out. It is a monstrous suggestion, which I hope the Government and hon. Members on this side will not consider for a moment. When our own men are back and established, we will always be prepared to consider it, and it has always been our policy, and the policy of a Tory Government under pressure, to let others seek employment in this country. But many of us remember the refugees of Nazi Germany, clever doctors and scientists, who were not allowed to work, and some very clever women, also including doctors, who were not allowed to take up employment. The record of the hon. Gentleman's party on the employment of aliens in this coun-


try is not one that commends itself either to me or to this House.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. and gallant Member will be alive to the fact that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) made his case that there was going to be a shortage of labour, and it was from that point of view only that he was arguing. He was not suggesting for a moment that foreign labour should be brought into this country, but only that the shortage had been established, and it was necessary to remedy it.

Major Poole: I am grateful for that intervention, but I must disagree. The one specific suggestion which the hon. Member for Monmouth made was that the Polish Forces in this country should be allowed to take up employment, not at some distant date, when we found we were short of labour, but tomorrow morning. I appreciate that he was not making a point about some anticipated shortage, but I think all his argument was based on something completely hypothetical.

Mr. Osborne: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? Does he think that, in agriculture, we should not use the Irish labour which comes over here year after year, when we get rid of the prisoner-of-war labour?

Major Poole: I am not suggesting any such thing. That is quite an extraneous matter, and in any case, the Irish, to us, are not aliens in the accepted sense of the word. They come from a part of the Empire, and perhaps that is something which the hon. Member has forgotten. I think the speech of the Prime Minister today was a sober, honest approach to this great problem. In fact, I was reminded by it of a speech which hon. Members of this House heard some years ago from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). The speech of the Prime Minister today seemed to be the counterpart of that "blood and tears and sweat" speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford during the war This was the "tears and sweat "speech of the interim period between war to peace. There is no need to tell the people of this country that they have to work hard to get through this period. There is no need for hon. Members on the other side to tell them that. It is fantastic to me, and this Debate seems unreal, viewed

from this angle, that we are only eight months from the end 01 the war. The war is hardly round the corner, and yet representatives of the party opposite talk as if the new heaven and the new earth ought to have been created in those eight months.
I wish to reinforce a point made by a previous speaker, and in that connection I would put this suggestion to the Government. The people know they have to work, but they are not working to the maximum. What is the difference? I venture to suggest that the psychological approach of the Government to the people of this country is wrong. I also venture to suggest that every time my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade stands up in this country and makes one of his austerity speeches, there is a downward reflection in the production of this country. I would appeal to the Government to cut out this austerity talk; The people know; they do not expect beer and skittles or any easy path to the new heaven and the new earth. They know of all the grimness. I suggest to the Government that they should point out to the people the brightness that is going to come, the really better future and the greater measure of security coming to them, instead of continuously telling them that they cannot have an extra tablecloth, or an extra tea cloth. It would be a much greater contribution to increasing production. People are expecting a gradual improvement in the availability of essential things, and one of the items in the Government's policy is that the maximum use should be made of accumulated stocks. I challenge the Government to prove that they are making the maximum use of accumulated stocks. I believe they are inflicting upon the people of this country a larger measure of austerity than is necessary, and that there are, in the accumulated stocks, an enormous quantity of goods which could brighten the way for the people.
In support of that view I want to quote two illustrations. Although I quote them only in their local application they have their parallels throughout the whole country. On 14th February I addressed to the responsible Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, a Question based on requests coming to me from


constituents of mine who were fulfilling important functions in industry and the professions—doctors and nurses—who were without transport and who wanted cars to get to their jobs. I asked the Home Secretary whether he was aware that in Region 9 the National Fire Service had many motor vehicles surplus to their requirements which had been standing in the open all through the winter. The reply I got was:
 Owing to the shortage of covered storage space, it is unavoidable that large numbers of these vehicles should be stored in the open, but, so far as is practicable perishable parts are removed beforehand. My Department notifies all surplus vehicles to the Department responsible for the arrangements for their disposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 134.]
That reply is a thoroughly dishonest one, and has no relation to the actual facts of the situation. I took it upon myself to inspect the vehicles, and I want to tell the Committee and the Government what I found, because this sort of thing is being repeated in every region. I am speaking now only of Fire Service vehicles. I found 265 vehicles—cars, lorries, a 31-seater coach, Austin 8's and 10's, Hillmans, Morris's and Fords—not a single one of which had done over 50,000 miles, which were fit for the road when placed on the dump 12 months before, and were now growing into the ground. There were brand new spare wheels, tyres and bulbs. To talk about making the maximum use of accumulated stocks in such circumstances is absolute nonsense. In this one dump—

Mr. Paton: If the hon. and gallant Member will permit me, I should like to ask whether he says that these vehicles were placed on the dump 12 months before and whether, having lain on the dump for 12 months, he says they were still serviceable vehicles?

Major Poole: No. What I said was that every car, when placed on the dump, was fit for the road.

Mr. Paton: They had been on the dump for 12 months?

Major Poole: They had been there the whole of the winter. The site is at Sutton Coldfield and I hope the Minister will send somebody there tomorrow morning to inspect it. There are four such dumps in Region 9 and there are 12 regions, so

that it is a safe estimate to say that there are 12,000 National Fire Service cars available, which the ordinary man in the street could have tomorrow. They have all deteriorated by probably£100 whilst on the sites. The Revenue has lost that capital, and the man in the street who cannot get a car to go to his work passes the dumps and says, "I wonder why." Why should people be deprived of such stocks? But that is not the whole of the story. I addressed another Question, on this occasion to the Minister of Works, and asked him why his Department had issued instructions to Region 9 for the destruction of serviceable fire extinguishers which were in great public demand, and whether he would make the articles available to the public. The reply I got was:
 Extinguishers of the type referred to are subject to deterioration "—
and I want hon. Members to take particular note of this—
 which is not readily apparent. In view of the very large production during the war it has been decided that it would be wrong to sell to the public any extinguishers which have been subject to the risk of deterioration or, alternatively, to incur the expense of testing and reconditioning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 161.]
Again, I suggest to the Department concerned and to the Committee that that is a thoroughly dishonest reply. There has never been any attempt by the Department to examine the stores or to segregate them. I took a representative selection of 24 extinguishers out of 750 and every one was in perfect working order. The Department's instructions are to destroy them. They are not extinguishers subject to deterioration at all; they are the Pyrene type of extinguishers. They were purchased at a cost of not less than£3 each and in Region 9 alone there are 750 of them. Every motorist in this country would gladly pay I0s. or more to purchase one. This is not making the maximum use of our resources.
Even that is not the end of the story. All through the winter I have been badgered by farmers and agricultural labourers asking whether I can do anything to induce the Board of Trade to let them have some rubber boots. I have sent every letter I have received on the subject to the Board of Trade, and back has come the reply that they are very sorry, but the position is so acute that there are no rubber boots to be had. What. do I find? I will take any hon.


Gentleman with me tomorrow and show him 8,000 to 10,000 pairs of brand new rubber boots, which have been declared surplus to Fire Service requirements ever since the end of the war. There are 12 regions, and it is a safe assumption to say that there are 100,000 pairs of rubber boots languishing in stores. They are taking up storage space, often in factories which have been taken over and which ought to be going back into production, but which are being used to store rubber boots which farmers and farm labourers require in order to get on with their work.
I also found, neatly stacked, 200 ladders 17 ft. 6 in. long, extending to 30 ft., of which farmers and fruit growers would be very glad. They were being sold to those people, but the sale was stopped because, I understand, the trade objected. I ask the Government: What is the trouble? Why are you destroying Pyrene fire extinguishers which people need? Is it so that the manufacturer may have a free field and an open market, and so that these articles shall not depress the market? Why are the Government hoarding ladders and other things which people want? Why are they keeping in storage rubber boots for which the people are loudly clamouring? Why are they letting good cars—1938 Morris eights and tens— deterioriate on this dump to which I have referred?
I should also have mentioned a number of fire tenders which would be most valuable to industry, and not one of which has done more than 3,000 miles; yet they too are growing into the ground. There are 5,000 pillows in the same stores. True, they have been used, but they have been thrown into a heap and there is a pile up to the ceiling of 5,000 of these pillows which only need processing at the cleaners, in order to be made available to the public. It makes this austerity talk, which we read in our Sunday papers, seem a little ridiculous. The trouble is that many of the people in this country know these things. They know these stores are available and that they are languishing in storage. We are losing in production because, on the one hand we have a Minister appealing for austerity and, on the other hand, the people know there is no need for it. It does not help people to be contented and to give of their best if they know, for instance, that although they cannot buy

curtain material because the coupons do not run to curtains, if only they could afford to pay£50 a window, they could have all the best curtaining they needed. In the shops and stores there is heavy curtaining for the rich. It works out at about£50 a window. I worked it out for my wife because we wanted curtains for our dining room and lounge windows. We have decided that we shall have to carry on with the curtains as they are and as they have been through the war. Also, if one can pay the price one can now get tablecloths. The poor and the middle class cannot get tablecloths, but the people who can pay an unlimited figure can have them.
So far, I have only dealt with the stocks of National Fire Service stores. I now want to ask the Government whether they have examined their Service stocks of blankets and sheets and articles like that which were accumulated for an Army exceeding 5,000,000 men and which will be down to 1,500,000 very shortly. I want to know if they have examined these and, if so, with what result; and when are we likely to have much of the Service stores which are available in Service Departments? I apologise for having taken up so much time, but I ask the Committee to realise that the picture which I have drawn affects only one small region in this country. It is a picture which is paralleled and duplicated time and time again, throughout this country. It is no wild statement because I ascertained my facts before I came here. If the Government have, as part of their policy, the full use of accumulated stocks, they must look at their records of storage, get some of these things out of store and make them available to the people. That will be one large contribution towards the uplifting of the morale of our people, and the increasing of our production.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: I was rather depressed by that part of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Poole) which referred to the manpower position. I thought he was speaking in the spirit of restrictionism rather than in the spirit of expansionism. He said that the amount of wealth and employment available was limited and that, like a pot, the more that was taken out the less there was for others. But surely he knows that the


limit to wealth is the amount of labour and organising genius which we can put in, and the more labour we can get, the higher the standard of living in this country. I hope the Minister in reply will make it clear that the Government do not accept the old-fashioned restrictionist view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield.
The first task in home affairs for this Government is the unwinding of the war machine. Under war conditions, in such a war as we have been engaged in, it was vitally necessary that the State should control all the resources of the country— both human and physical. That in wartime was practicable, first of all because people, inspired a great deal, I hope, by the emotion of patriotism, and inspired perhaps by the emotion of fear, were prepared to make great sacrifices. It was practicable because the State knew all the time just what it wanted to produce. It knew it wanted guns, tanks, aeroplanes, etc., and it was possible because waste did not matter. The one thing that mattered was speed; speed saved lives. Those conditions are not present today. The people will not work for the State with any greater happiness than they are when they are working for other people. Waste matters a very great deal. We cannot afford the extra cost which was involved in the war conditions. I would not agree that right hon. Gentlemen opposite really know what the consumer wants. They are not infallible in choosing whether we want bicycles, gramophones or what. That should be left to the consumer. Therefore, it is vitally necessary to unwind this war machine as soon as we can.
A great deal of the time of this Parliament and a great deal of the energy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which, with all respect, must be limited, has been devoted to long-term projects of the nationalisation of the Bank of England, the control of investments, the nationalisation of coal and the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act. All those plans, whether they are good as they think, or bad as we think, are not going to have an immediate effect on production. I believe the people of this country, of all parties, want at the present time above anything else an abundance of the necessities of life and perhaps a few luxuries. I do not think

this pre-occupation of the Government is getting that conversion from war to peace which will give us that abundance which is so much wanted. The present state of affairs leads to scarcity. I have heard a number of hon. Members opposite today deny that, and say that scarcity does not matter because the standard of living has gone up, but I would point out that scarcity breeds inflation and inflation produces not only terrific dislocation but also great social injustice. It destroys the value of people's savings, old age pensions, payments to war pensioners and so forth. The ideal safeguard against that is to increase production, and that really depends upon manpower.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mon-mouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) gave us his idea of the manpower budget for 1946, and I am going to be still more brave and give the outlines of one for 1950, based on the very interesting article by Mr. Barna in the London and Cambridge Economic Service. Supported even by that powerful aid, I realise, of course, that the figures which I shall put forward are mere guesses and I am not confident of any accuracy, but if they could elicit from the Government some, definite statement of their inaccuracy they will have served their purpose, and if the Government cannot say they are inaccurate I think they point to a very dangerous situation. I have assumed a greater increase in the manpower available than did my hon. Friend. I think by 1950, with a high level of employment, we might get something like 500,000 more in the labour market than there were in the war. I have assumed that defence, based on the reduction of the figures in the White Paper, will take 1,000,000 men more than before the war; that is in respect of defence services and the production of munitions.
I have assumed that exports are increased by 50 per cent., with a 20 per cent, increase in productivity. That is pretty optimistic, because we have to face the fact that at this moment I do not believe there is any increase in productivity at all. That would take 750,000 men. For capital reconstruction—under which heading I include industrial reconstruction, housing and deferred maintenance—there must be at least an increase of 25 per cent, of the men employed before the war. That would give 750,000 men. Those three added together, give a total of 2,500,000 or a deficit of


2,000,000 which has to come out of those producing consumer goods. I suggest that, if those figures are anywhere near right, it means that unless we can increase productivity, increase the output per man, we will have the present rationing not for a year or two but for the life of this Parliament. And if the Government commit us to any further expenditure on other sources, we may have not merely this rationing but drastic cuts in it, that is to say much lower rationing than we have at the moment, and for a very long time.
I think it is convenient to put our expenditure under three headings: that by the State and the local authorities; that by the consumers, articles bought in the shops; and that by industrialists, capital re-equipment, houses, etc. If the total demands under those three heads exceed the resources available, quite clearly we spill over into inflation.
The Prime Minister in his thoughtful and moderate speech, such as we always expect from him and for which I think we can truly say we admire him on all sides of the House, gave a survey which I shall study with care tomorrow morning. But I am bound to say that on hearing it I felt he was conscious of a need for something like a Chiefs of Staff Committee such as there was in the war to sort out which plans could be dropped and which taken on. I felt his speech was perhaps rather an apology for the absence of a plan. I had no conviction of there being any coordinating plan showing what resources we had, what demands there were, and how those demands are going to be cut down.
I would like to quote the "Economist." That is a paper which does not go out of its way to be friendly to the Conservative Party, but perhaps does go out of its way to show that it is not unfriendly to the Socialist Party. The "Economist," after giving a list of the commitments to which the Government are already involved, said:
 Each of these, regarded by itself, it can perhaps afford. But can it afford them all together? That is the question that this Government of professed planners is apparently unwilling to ask, or at least unable to answer. Neither in terms of pounds sterling nor in terms of man-hours will they cast up their accounts. Everything, it appears, is being gambled on a prodigious increase in the national capacity to produce wealth. But the formula of productivity is hard work plus modern equipment. No one in authority will preach the former,"—

but they can claim that the Prime Minister has now taken their advice—
 and the margin of savings needed for the latter is being mortgaged for non-productive purposes. Who could have foreseen that, six months after a Labour Government took office, the chief complaint against them would not be that they are Socialists, but that they have relied too much on laissez faire."
My hon. Friend the Member for Mon-mouth made many suggestions as to how the Government could extend the national wealth and thereby beat the fear of inflation. I had certain views which 1 wanted to put forward, but in view of what he said, I confine myself to talking about a wages policy. It seems to me that the absence of a wages policy is incompatible with a Socialist economy. It is vitally necessary not only to demobilise men as soon as possible, but to get them into those industries where they are most needed. As far as I know, there are only three ways of doing that. One is the old way of unemployment, which we are all determined we have left behind; secondly, direction of labour, which we on this side of the Committee at any rate would detest; thirdly, higher wages. We cannot give higher wages, unless there is greater productivity. Hon. Members opposite must learn to face the future. We are in a new age, and they have got to give up their traditional ideas with regard to wage levels. I have heard it said that industrial workers are entitled, inalienably entitled, to higher wage levels than agricultural workers. I hope that will be denied. If not, how are we to attract men into the more unpopular industries?
I will now quote from a very excellent article on the question of wages, because it puts, far more concisely than I can, exactly my views about it:
 What, then, is the effect of an increase in wages at the present time? The truth is that while extreme shortage lasts wage increases for one section of industry are liable to raise costs of production and be passed on in higher prices to the consumers so that the original increase is at the expense of workers in other sections of industry as well as at the expense of citizens a as whole. And once prices begin going up there may be a general demand for wage increases to meet the increased cost of living, the further wage increases raise the cost of living again, and the vicious spiral is at work. In such circumstances wage increases may even be positively harmful to the community. That is why, from the point of view of the nation, restraint should be exercised about pressing for indiscriminate wage increases.


That is not produced by the Right-Wing Press, commonsense though it is. It is produced by the Labour Party research department. Hon. Members opposite are probably very familiar with it. No doubt they had the advantage of me in getting it for nothing, whereas I had to spend 3d. to buy it, but their swelling funds are so enormous, that they hardly want my mite. During this Parliament comparatively few days have gone by without hon. and right hon. Members opposite telling us about their mandate. Time and time again, they have come out with that phrase, that they have a mandate because of the result of the Election. I wondered why they did it, because after all it is not the first time a great Party has won a General Election. It is not the first time a great Party has got a clear majority over all other Parties. I am now beginning to feel that perhaps the reason is they think it will cloak their absence of plans. I must say that last summer I thought it quite possible the Labour Party might win the Election.
I thought that if they did, we should be sure to want to criticise their plans for being bad, but 1 never expected to have to criticise them for having no plans, or inadequate plans. I, like perhaps many people on this side of the Committee, sometimes wish that we lived in the days of our forebears when there was a simpler society: In those days Government planning was not necessary, but now, alas, it is; in this highly industrialised society in which we live we have to have planning; I think one of the best instances of planning was the White Paper on Full Employment brought out: by the Coalition Government. There we had set out a scheme of planning at the top accompanied by freedom below. Unless we have really adequate planning at a high level we cannot get freedom, and we cannot get high standards. It looks to me as though right hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to give us no'- planning at the top and freedom below, but chaos at the top, and regimentation below.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: One of the things that has most struck me about this Debate so far is the contrast between the two opening speeches. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a careful and sober appeal to the nation which con

trasted very sharply with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr Lyttelton), who made a speech of great, and indeed studied, pessimism containing a thinly veiled threat that we could not count on national unity unless we withdrew the policies which have been approved by the people during the Election. He attacked our long-term policy, and particularly our policy of nationalisation, and then gave a list of industries which were in such a plight that nothing could save them but our policy of nationalisation.
The Prime Minister emphasised the importance, and some of the consequences, of a policy of full employment in this country. I would like to say a word or two about some' aspects of a policy of maintaining full employment. I would say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should not be misled by the labour shortage in this critical transition period. Over there, now, they all talk as if the maintenance of full employment was the easiest thing in the world, but the nation will not so easily and quickly forget the experience it had between the two wars, when it was realised that uncontrolled and unplanned capitalism involved mass unemployment. It seems to me that full employment will need skill and planning to achieve. It will be the key to our future. Without full employment our other policies will fail. And with full employment everything else will be added unto us, and we shall be able to solve all our serious and difficult internal problems.
My first point about the policy of full employment is the need to find a way to discuss it in Parliament. We were all very grateful to the Prime Minister for the speech in which he has laid before us today a great array of valuable figures, but I am not sure that such a speech, or such a Debate as this, fully solves the problem of finding a way of discussing this new technique of democratic Government. It will not be easy to do so. The policy of maintaining full employment covers a very wide field. It is not really a question of Acts of Parliament, it is much more a question of administration, foresight, and having an apparatus for collecting and observing figures and statistics. It certainly does not concern any one Minister. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in


another Debate recently said that these matters of planning must be the concern of the Government as a whole, and, of course, he was quite right. I am not sure—I do not know enough about Parliamentary procedure—how with our present methods there is any way by which a new sort of technique and policy of this sort can be laid before Parliament. It may be that we shall require to have a Minister who opens a manpower budget in the same way as the Chancellor opens a financial Budget. It may be that we shall have to infringe somewhat the doctrine of the secrecy of Cabinet Committees, because it seems to me that the technique of full employment must be conducted through Cabinet Committees. As things are we have, to a certain extent, to go by scattered indications of the Government's policy—straws in the wind. We look for such straws very carefully, and I am very glad to say that there are enough to show that the Government have a full employment policy towards which they are working clearly and consistently. But we ought to find some new technique in this House for debating this new democratic technique of maintaining full employment.
I would like to say a few words about these straws in the wind, these indications of Government policy, and I want, first, to say something about the question as to whether we should have a balanced or an unbalanced Budget. We have been told that the Budget is to be balanced over a few years, instead of each year as it has been in the past. That seems to me to show that the Government are still thinking in terms of a balanced Budget; it makes no difference whether it is balanced over a short number of years or each year. I am very doubtful whether a balanced Budget, balanced either annually or over a short period, is really compatible with a policy of maintaining full employment. Full employment, amongst other things, needs these two things, first of all; it needs some method by which we can catch up the savings which are not invested in real capital—the idle savings of the country, which have been one of the great standing causes of unemployment. And secondly, a policy for maintaining full employment means that you must have some means of increasing and maintaining purchasing power amongst the people. An unbalanced Budget does in fact do both

those things, and I am not sure that a balanced Budget can do either of them.
The neatest and most effective way of sucking up idle savings is by State borrowing, and certainly the neatest way of increasing and maintaining purchasing power is for the State to be giving out to the people more than it is taking back out of their pockets. If you are following a policy of maintaining purchasing power and insist on maintaining balanced Budgets, you are all the time frustrating yourself by taking more from the pockets of the people than you are putting back. It might even be necessary to have a number of different sorts of Budgets; a capital budget, a social security budget, and a normal financial Budget, but in the long run it all comes back to the fact— there is no escaping it—that you must have deficit finance if you wish to maintain full employment.
I would like to make one last point on this question of maintaining full employment, which will not only need foresight, planning and an apparatus for collecting figures. It will also need an extremely quick and adaptable system, because however carefully you plan there are unpredictable factors which can suddenly come upon you. I do not think it can be said often enough that one of those unpredictable factors of great importance may be an American slump. The thing that most threatens our internal economy is a slump happening across the Atlantic in America. It is certainly not under our control, and it is only to a very limited extent predictable from the figures at the disposal of our own Government. We certainly cannot guard wholly against the consequences of an American slump, which would, of course, affect our standard of living, but we can make sure that, if it should happen, we shall have full employment in this country even with a lower standard of living—unlike 1931, when we had a low standard of living and mass unemployment.
We can only be sure that we do maintain our policy of full employment under such an unpredictable blow as an American slump if we have a quick means of stimulating capital investment and maintaining purchasing power. The difficulty here is that we have a complex economy that is still largely in private hands; and it is very difficult to make such an economy react quickly to a situation of this sort which has not been fore-


seen. It is much quicker in nationalised industries, which are much further under Government control. It sems to me that in addition to all the particular arguments we use in regard to particular industries we want to nationalise, there is also this very important general argument in favour of nationalisation.
Unless a reasonable amount of the economy is under nationalisation, there will not be enough of it to respond quickly when it is necessary to adjust it to unpredictable affairs like an American slump. I think the Government should give standing orders to the boards which will be controlling our nationalised industries to prepare and have ready reserve orders which can be thrown quickly into the balance in order to simulate capital investment should our economy come up against these unpredictable difficulties. I do not doubt that that will be done. It is one of the things, however, that we have to be told about, and it is also one of the things—here I come back to my first point— that we have to discover some means of bringing to the Floor of this House, so that we can have a serious discussion on the subject.
These two or three points which I have made about full employment have been a little critical in some ways of the Government's intentions, as I deduce them. The essential fact seems to me to be that we can make criticisms of this sort only if we assume that the Government have a plan for full employment. It is only because of that assumption that we can make the criticism at all. From all the indications we have, the Government have a plan for full employment, and that convinces me that there is ground for good and sober optimism for our country's future in spite of all the grave difficulties that we are facing. Every patriotic person must rejoice that, at this critical time in our economic affairs, a Labour Government is at the helm in this country.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister upon the economic state of the country. As one who has the responsibility of seeing production figures every day, I am wondering what will be the effect of that speech in my factory tomorrow morning, what it will be on the morning after and what the effect will be a week after that. I am not unduly

pessimistic when I say I believe the effect will be very limited. The Prime Minister's appeal today is not sufficiently forceful to make people realise the urgency of our position, or do anything to restore the position we have to gain, if we are to put ourselves on to our feet.
If one goes around and asks factory managers what percentage of production they are getting, given constant circumstances, by comparison with 1938, the probable figure given in reply will be 60 per cent. Can we carry on much longer with production at 60 per cent, of 1938? What do the Government propose to do in order to restore production to a higher level? Has there been any attempt today by any Government spokesman to refer to the all-important question of indiscipline in industry? How is it proposed to restore discipline to industry? It can be done by having an unemployment queue, but is that the method which right hon. Gentlemen opposite propose to take, in order to restore discipline in industry? On the other hand, if we do not restore discipline, there will be no increase in production, and the consumer goods which are so badly needed will not be in the shops.
It is obvious to me that there is no hope for this country unless we increase our production well above the 1938 level. What is the most obvious way in which that production can be increased? It is by giving an incentive to production. Surely, it should be the duty of His Majesty's Government to see how far they can relate earnings to production in every conceivable industry. The urgent need is to see that a man gets more as he produces more. That will automatically solve the problem of discipline and also the problem of production. [An HON. MEMBER: "Raise wages."]
The comment has been made that the attitude taken by hon. Members on this side of the House is unduly pessimistic. I feel, on the contrary, that the country is not taking a sufficiently grim view of the situation which is likely to confront us if we go on as we are going now. During the war we piled up enormous loans. We have a decreasing labour force. We have lost a great deal of our market. We have voluntarily assumed a large amount of social service, which has to be paid for out of productive enterprise. We are faced with decreasing production per man hour. Is it not remarkable for the Prime Minister to say that the problem is not a


question of output per man hour? Indeed, the whole of this question is one of output per man hour. It should be the duty of the Government to ram that home to the people to make them realise its over all importance.
We have an artificial economy which can be sustained only by an output which is double what we had in 1938. All the hopes that exist in this country of a higher standard of living depend entirely upon a rise in the output per man hour. It should be the duty of His Majesty's Government to use all the resources of their publicity and persuasion to make that fact known to. the mass of the people and to see it realised.
There is a tendency on the part of the Government to discourage private enterprise and, as a consequence, to discourage enterprise. It may well be that the Government's intentions are good, or that they have no evil intentions towards men in industry; we cannot get away from the fact, however, that those who are responsible for conducting industry believe that the Government are, in the main, not out to help them, but are out to discourage them. The resources of the Government in publicity and persuasion should be stimulated towards correcting that impression. If ever we needed men of enterprise and ingenuity we need them today, and every conceivable encouragement should be given to men who can display that enterprise and ingenuity.
We have great need in British industry for better management and better technical organisation. That deficiency has existed because of a number of causes. In 1946 it is no good getting hold of a job, throwing the drawings to the foreman and saying, "Here you are Bob, get on with them." We have to organise, and production must. be more scientific and more complete. The duty of the Government is to make people and managements conscious of the need for better organisation. Let us laud production. Let us glorify the man and the management who do better than their neighbours. That is an attitude we have to get going in this country, if we are to survive. I do not like this talk about manpower budgets. I want to see established the aim of national wealth production. Let us have a target. Let every firm and industry have its target, and let them work up to it. Let them get rewards if

they exceed it. Unless that spirit is developed in this country, the high policies and high hopes of the mass of the people will be frustrated. Only through greater output can we have the things we so badly need.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Lee: Too much stress is being placed by hon. Members opposite upon manpower. The' whole basis of our industrial life before the war was the accepted fact that there was a large volume of cheap labour available. I suggest that it is not entirely because of the exigencies of war that we are in our present economic plight. One easily sees that before the war our productivity was fast falling behind that of many of our competitors. It is interesting to "note in the" Economic Journal "for April, 1943, a comparison between the position of the physical output per head in certain manufactures and industries, in the United States of America and in this country. Two or three years before the war, in 1936, coal, based at 100 in Britain, had reached 263 in the United States of America; smelting and rolling of iron and steel had reached 168 to our 100; blast furnace products, 361 to our 100; and the production of motor cars, 419 to our 100 in this country. When we see those figures we readily realise that it is not for us now to talk in terms of driving labour harder, but for us rather to look to the root causes of our falling behind in the economic race. Mr. Batt, Vice-Chairman of the U.S. War Production Board and United States member of the Combined Production and Resources Board recently stated:
 Even before the war, British industry had fallen hopelessly behind the times. It stuck to methods and tools of its grandfathers' day, and was quite incapable of meeting modem competition. Still less will it be able to compete in the world of tomorrow. For the last five years. British industry has been in a large measure cut off from observing the tremendous strides we have taken in this period, in production methods and efficiency, strides which have left Britain still farther behind in the race of progress.
I submit that the only hope of the preservation of the economic life of this country lies in our getting the basic industries of the country in a highly mechanised condition. Mining, engineering, transport and agriculture are now suffering from the neglect of mechanisation in prewar years.
During the Debate, very many useful speeches have been made from both sides. I was particularly interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), with many of whose points I agree. But I think he contradicted himself on a very vital issue when speaking about the engineering industry on which he is, of course, an authority. He told the Committee that we were now suffering because we could not get the manpower in the engineering industry; and, a moment or two afterwards, he chided the Government for leaving a vast number of men in engineering, under what he called munitions production. I hope I do not do him an injustice, but I feel that a contradiction of that type should be explained away, or else withdrawn, because there is no difference between the engineering industry and the munitions industry as we know it in this country.
On the question of the reorganisation of industry, one of the basic industries which I feel the Government will have to tackle is the whole transport system, not only for itself alone, but because it can have the most clogging effect on other industries as well. I ask the Government to look very closely at the obsolete type of equipment that the railways are using. I ask them to compare the methods in this country with those in almost every other country in Europe. Are they satisfied that the gauge which is used in this country, and the type of wagon and type of conveyance used in this country, will enable industry to move its products around in an expeditious manner? I know a little about this, and I can tell hon. Members that there are many stretches of line in this country along which large indivisible pieces of mechanical equipment cannot be moved, especially if war traffic is going along the up line. There are stretches of 50 to 60 miles which have to be closed on one line when large pieces of heavy power equipment are being moved. The tendency in engineering is for those indivisible pieces to be increased in weight, and in bulk, and unless engineering can be assured that its commodities can reach the points for which they are intended, and where they are most valuable, it is of no use producing them at all:

Colonel Enroll: May I ask the hon. Member if he is

really proposing that the whole British railway system should be regauged? Would it not be much more practical to develop road transport a little more?

Mr. Lee: I accept the point that rail equipment is not the only feature of transport, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that, if we are to speak in terms of the modernisation of our railway equipment and so on, we have to decide what our gauge shall be, what the overhang shall be, so that we can move such pieces of heavy bulk goods about the country.

Colonel Erroll: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the gauge has been fixed not only in this country but in most overseas countries as well, and that regauging our rails would mean regauging rails abroad, or else we should be losing inter-changeability?

Mr. Lee: We have got to get a far bigger overhang. We must realise when we are talking of moving heavier bulks that we must take into consideration the gauge itself. That is the point I was making. I am suggesting to the Government that one of the essential points of reorganisation is this analysis of our basis of transport. We all know fur coats may not be of much use in West Africa, and that unless we can get them to the North Pole they will lose much of their utility value. It is true to say engineering will be severely cramped in its style unless we can assure transport by rail and road for the pieces of mechanism to be used. I should like to know Government policy so far as exports are concerned. It is true to say that the transport system of practically the whole or, at any rate, the majority of the European countries has been seriously disorganised by the bombing during the war. So that very much of our ability to export to the Continent may depend, in the last analysis, on their transport systems when our commodities reach them. Are we prepared to allow to those countries credit facilities in order that they in their turn can import the commodities we can send to them?
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot referred to the cotton industry. I do not think that he or any other hon. Member in this House would attempt to tell us that the plight in cotton is due to the war period. We know of the horrible deprivation from which the industry suffered for so long before the war, and


I instance this, because I feel that mechanisation or the whole future of mechanisation can be depicted very clearly by it. I again call in aid the gentleman from whom I previously quoted, the vice-chairman of America's War Production Board, who said:
 Britain could learn something from the United States about textile production for the war effort. Britain, with34 million spindles against America's 22 million, is producing only 7,700 million yards of sorely needed cotton textiles against our production of 10,000 million yards. Why? Because we have upwards of 600,000 automatic looms here, and in Britain you have about 14,000. Britain's production of cotton textiles fell from 7,000 million in 1914 to 1,400 million in 1939—one-fifth as much. Why? Because Britain is 30 years behind in her methods. And this happened at a time when the general world consumption of textiles rose by about 35 per cent.
Yet we intend to export 40 per cent, more than we did in the prewar period. How are we to do it, unless we get that basis of mechanisation which they have developed in the United States in such a degree?

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Can the hon. Gentleman get the trade unions to agree to the conditions which exist in the United States? Are they in favour of the automatic loom; and is he quite certain that his own party and the trade unions agree with Mr. Batt's description of conditions in America?

Mr. Lee: So far as the A.E.U. is concerned its policy is this: We will help in every possible way to expedite production by mechanisation, but we will not agree that, merely because a new type of loom or machine is introduced, the persons who work, the machines must be dubbed as semi-skilled, because much of the skill has been taken out of the job. We do not oppose the idea of increased mechanisation; we merely oppose the object of employers which is in many cases to dub the workers on the machines "semiskilled" and to pay them lower wages.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: Is it not a fact that the trade unions in Lancashire strongly opposed the introduction of the Northrupp automatic 100m? I saw this loom in America, but it has not been introduced on the same scale in Lancashire.

Mr. Lee: If one went to Lancashire now, one would see many of these Northrupps running in the Lancashire cotton mills.

Mr. Osborne: But not on the same scale.

Mr. Lee: I was asked if the trade unions object. If they object why are they using these machines in the Lancashire cotton industry?
If I may turn to the future of productivity in this country, I would like to refer to what has been largely a wartime development—the production committee idea. I know that it is not wholly a wartime idea. I was a member of a production committee in a large factory in Manchester many years before the war. The more enlightened type of managements take the worker into their confidence because he gives them ideas for increasing production of certain types of orders going through the factory. We have always found that the workers responded very readily to advances of that kind made by the managers. Because of that, I think that the Government would do well to propogate the fact that we are long past the stage when productivity was the function of any particular class of society. We know that during the war period, the workers realised that they had a tremendous stake in the future of this country. I saw during the war, in the factory which I have mentioned, engineers working without any roof over their heads in the middle of winter, and they had the incentive to produce because they realised that they were doing so in the interests of every man, woman and child in the country. I am sufficiently well acquainted with my workpeople to know that the incentive and driving power which brought them so closely together during the war, are still there for the asking, if the Government will harness employers and employees together in the same way as in those days.
It is not quite so picturesque to talk now in terms of production for economic recovery, as it was during the war to talk in terms of production to defeat Fascism. But inside the trade union movement, there has been a great realisation that, having achieved greater power than ever before in this country, they must accept the principle that power in itself begets responsibility, and they are quite willing to accept that responsibility. I hope that the Government will see—if there is to be a new spirit so far as the employers are concerned and one which the trade unions can reciprocate—that we get down to the basis of productivity not


by cheap labour but by the expansion of mechanisation in the basic industries of the country.
I feel that I can speak for the whole trade union movement in saying that they accept the basis that we have got to move with the spirit of the times, and that if we are to make possible a 40-hours week and a higher standard of life that cannot b3 done merely by party discussions in this House, but only by increased productivity in every workshop in the country. I know that men and women in industry will accept the point which I have made that increased productivity is the only basis for an increased standard of life, and that they will loyally carry that into effect. I feel that the Government have a big opportunity as well as a big responsibility. The people of the country, especially those in the factories, are solidly behind this Government. I do not wish to make mere party points. The recent by-elections have proved that, despite the rigours of life in these days and the world shortage of food, the people are determined that they will give this Government and this party every opportunity to make good and increase the security and decencies of life so far as they are concerned.
I ask the Government to tackle this job in an imaginative manner, and to insist that employers should not be afraid to spend money on research. So far as the future of the country is concerned a tremendous amount will depend on the research facilities which are granted to industry. I appreciate that there may be industries which cannot afford to expend vast sums of money in research. In those circumstances, I suggest that the Government should aid those industries to the utmost of their ability. I am certain that that expenditure would come back through increased production, and thereby result in a higher standard of economic life. I feel that this debate can do a great deal of good. The speech of the Prime Minister was most inspiring and I know that the men and women in industry will take it very much to heart. I feel that hon. Members on all sides can do a big job of work by going back to the country to preach this philosophy of hard work. Only by hard work can we expect to reap a decent reward. It must be understood that work will be

achieved only so far as the Government and all of us are determined to see that the people who do the work, receive the benefit of it in increased standards of life.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: In the few minutes during which I will detain the House I want to make only one point. The hon. and gallant Member for Lich-field (Major C. Poole) said that the Tories lost the last Election largely because they talked about hard work and knew nothing of it personally, and that the Socialists won it because they not only talked about it but knew about it. The inference was drawn that we on this side of the House have no right to talk about people working hard. I. just want to ask the indulgence of the House to state that I started work when I was 14 years of age at 6 o'clock in the morning for 5s. a week and I have worked hard all my life. Therefore, I can claim to talk about hard work. The Prime Minister made the point—and to me it was a most vital point—that at the end of 1946 there would be something like 400,000 more working in industry than in the middle of 1939. I am delighted to see the President of the Board of Trade in his place, because there is one appeal I would like to make to him. It is not so much the number of people who are working, but the fact that we should do an honest day's work. This country cannot afford idle rich or idle poor. Everybody has to work, and what is lacking- in the country on all sides is willingness to work. That is something we have somehow to get back to.
Yesterday there appeared in "The Times" two letters on the position in industry today. The first letter made the point that the coal output in 1941 was 294.8 tons per man per annum and in 1945 it had dropped to 245 tons; that is 50 tons per man per annum less. I am not throwing any bricks at the miners. I have lived long enough with them to know that they have a very difficult time; but I do know that unless we get a greater willingness to work and to turn out the things we all want to enjoy, the social policy which we all want to pursue will just be impossible. The second letter was written by a miner who had worked 40 years in the pits. He said that the only way to get more output was


 to offer us something we need more than money—that is food.
I commend that to the Government.
The other week the Minister of Food, the Committee will remember, gave us a shock and sent a shudder through the country when he said he hoped he would be able to avoid the rationing of bread, which was the last thing he wanted. I believe it would be a good thing if this country did have bread rationing. I think that a shock about our economic position is what we need. We had to be shocked in the way that we were shocked after Dunkirk when we were really frightened and when we worked hard. I believe the position before the country is this: either we work or we shall starve. It is the duty of all hon. Members to go back to their constituencies and tell the people the truth of the position. The choice before us is either to work or to starve. May I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade? Knowing that he will appreciate it, I will give him the reference. In the 4th chapter of the Book of Nehemiah, the prophet had to face a similar position to the one the right hon. Gentleman is facing now. [Laughter.] It is not something to laugh about. It is very much to the point. After that war had ceased, the prophet found that the walls had broken down, as in London, and that the gates were burned with fire, as in London. After getting the people together and uniting them, the prophet could say to his people:
 So built we the wall…for the people had a mind to work.
That is what we need now. It is the mind and the will to work by the people that are most required.
Many times in this Debate our position has been likened to that of Dunkirk. I believe it is like it. After Dunkirk we found inspired leadership; what we need today is inspired leadership. I think the President of the Board of Trade has had a lot more bricks thrown at him from his own party and from this side of the House than he deserves. He has shown the country the stark realities which we have to face, and he deserves a better reception than he has got. One hon. Gentleman said the present was like the time of Dunkirk, except that there was no blood in it—toil, tears and sweat. The

question of manpower is important; but it is more important to get everybody to work. Those who will not work shall not eat. It is our duty to say that, no matter what station in life people belong to, only the people who work. shall eat. [An Hon. Member: "There will be a lot starving."] If we do not work, none of us will be able to eat.

8.6 p.m.

Captain Baird: I was rather sorry that the President of the Board of Trade was not in the House when the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major C. Poole) made the point that our present austere position could be improved if the Government released some of the surplus Government stores which are lying wasting at the present time. Before I make my main argument, I would like to press home this point. I am one of two dental surgeons in the House, and I am worried about the position of dental surgeons who are coming out of the Forces. There is a shortage of dentists in the country, yet the released dentists cannot find work to do because there is no dental equipment. At the same time, I know for a fact that many months ago the Army handed over to the Board of Trade some 250 complete dental outfits. None or these has got to the market yet, and today there are dental surgeons who are unemployed. I am not suggesting that by increasing the.number of dentists we are increasing the pleasures of the population. I want to make the point, however, that there is a tremendous wastage in the country through surplus Government equipment lying wasting.
Perhaps I might now come to my main argument, after doing my duty by my profession. I believe that since I entered the House the relationship of the Member of Parliament to his constituents has been revolutionised. In the past the Member of Parliament was content to visit his constituency once every two or three months, but people today are demanding that their Member of Parliament should visit them every week. Why is that? Because there is a growing desire for political education amongst the ordinary people of the country. The political stature of the man in the street is increasing. He is taking an increased interest in political problems. I have become


convinced during the last few weeks that a Member of Parliament who speaks honestly to his constituents will retain their support. Further, I am convinced, from what I have seen, that the ordinary man in the street understands the problems of the Government. He is arguing this way: The Government are giving us social security, and in return for social security, which we never had before, we are willing to remain with our belts tightened and put our backs into the work of production. At the same time, however, we must face the fact that in certain industries there is a drift away from the industry, and a reduction in production. It is one of the anomalies of the capitalist system that the riskier the job, the dirtier the job, and the more unhealthy the job, the less the wage which is paid for it.
Let me give two examples of the drift away from industry. In agriculture and mining the standard of skill required to do the job is just as high as in the higher paid industries. Yet these two industries are looked down on; in fact, there is a certain amount of snobbishness even among the working class on this matter. Even skilled engineers are apt to argue that they should have a better wage than the miner or the farm labourer. Yet the skill required for their task is no more than the skill required for the agricultural labourer's and the miner's task. The drift will not be stopped from the land or-the pits until the standard of living of the agricultural worker and the miner is equal to that of the engineer. I am not suggesting that the engineer's wage should be reduced; I am arguing that the standard of life of the agricultural worker and the miner should be raised to that of the engineer. The dirtier and the riskier the job the more money should be paid for it. The Government must face up to the question of formulating a wages policy for industry.
There is another way, I believe, in which we can stop the drift from basic industries, and improve production, and that is by introducing a system of industrial democracy in industry. We have to convince the worker that he has a stake in industry, and that he is a partner in it. If that is done production will increase, and absenteeism will decrease. Recently, we discussed a Bill to nationalise the coal mines. That Bill will

be a model for other Bills to nationalise other industries, but I am sorry the Government did not take the opportunity to state what they believed the relationship of the worker should be to the ownership of the various industries which they intend to nationalise. A definition of the position of the worker in industry would have had a tremendous propaganda effect on production. It would have convinced the worker that he was a member of, and partner in, industry. The Government did not take that opportunity. The worker is not mentioned in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill. I therefore hope that the Government will take an early opportunity of stating what they think the worker's position in nationalised industry should be. Someone described the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill the other day as publicly owned private enterprise.
It is interesting to note that in the only industry which has been nationalised for a considerable time the workers have not been content with nationalisation by itself. The Post Office Workers' Union, a very responsible trade union, published a pamphlet before the Election, which argued that nationalisation, by itself, is not enough. I would like to read a paragraph from that pamphlet. It states:
 Let us assume, for instance, that the country decides that its vital industries shall be taken out of the hands of the shareholders, and set to work for the people. What then? Would this people's ownership give us democracy in industry? It would not, if after ownership had changed, the expert manager and foreman were still having the first and last word, and we were merely taking orders. The boss would not be the flesh and blood shareholder true, but a something without a body or soul called the Department, or the State. Obviously, if, as citizens, we were clever enough and brave enough to win democracy, we should win it for ourselves first, and that win should be chalked up in the workshop or the office. We should be ready.…to say to the people's representatives whom we have elected, ' Here. we are, as a union, prepared.… to come into a growing share of control and management. We are not afraid of responsibility.' 
That is the attitude of a union which has had some experience of nationalisation. I am not suggesting that the line along which we should go is the development of production committees. I believe that to a great extent they were a failure during the war, because they did not fulfil their true function. They were used almost entirely to discipline the workers. The type of


committee I am suggesting has an entirely different object. Workers committees, on which the management should not sit, should be set up to meet regularly to discuss ways and means of increasing efficiency and production. The Government should define the powers of these committees which should have access, through their national trade union, to the controlling body for the industry. They should be able to suggest ways and means of increasing efficiency in industry, and should also have the power to criticise the management if they considered that it was inefficient.
In conclusion, I would appeal to the Government to see that in this first Session, which will be a glorious Session [Laughter. ] There is somebody laughing, but I and those who support the Government believe that they will do what other Governments have not yet done—give the workers the social security which they have never had before. As I was saying, I appeal to the Government to state their wages policy and what place the worker should have in the nationalised industries of the future. On these two fundamentals depends the success or failure of our manpower policy.

8.19 p.m.

Colonel Erroll: I would like to refer, first, to some of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for East Wolverhampton (Captain Baird). I agree that the disposal of surplus Government stores is indeed most disappointing, and I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the Government are so determined that no one should make a profit out of such disposal that they would rather see that nobody got any of the surplus goods. I was interested to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman urge a wages policy on the Government. It does show that the light is at last beginning to dawn in the minds of hon. Members opposite. For some months we have been urging the Government to produce a wages policy and now, at last, we see the Government supponters urging their own Front Bench to do the same. In that matter I am in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member.
I would like to refer, briefly, to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hulme (Mr. Lee), for whose knowledge of the manufacturing side of the engineering industry I have the greatest respect.

When the hon. Member talks about production.in the engineering industry, it is well worth listening to him. Consequently, I was sorry to hear him talk such arrant nonsense when he spoke of the need for regauging the whole of the British railway system in order that it might carry a few out-of-gauge loads. Surely, he does not suggest that we should use our depleted manpower resources in the very arduous and laborious task of relaying the whole of our railway system widening the tunnels, and so on.

Mr. Lee: I am 9ure that the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham and Sale (Colonel Erroll) does not wish to misinterpret me. What I said was that there were parts of the railway lines in this country which could not take one big indivisible piece of engineering production,, and that if it was necessary to alter the gauge so as to get rid of the overhang it would be well worth doing, but that if it could stand the additional overhang without the gauge being altered, so much the better.

Colonel Erroll: I am grateful for the explanation, which underlines another point that I wish to make concerning the hon. Member's speech. It is the importance of the development of research in the engineering industry. Surely, the way to get over the difficulty of these-large indivisible lumps of engineering production is to have some redesigning, and research into lighter alloys, prefabricated methods of construction, and so on. The hon. Member rightly urged industry to give its mind to research; but industry can properly spend money on research only if it is assured of a reward for that research. There must be full scope left for making a profit out of the results of research. When hon. Members opposite chastise industry for not being more research-minded, they should realise that probably the reason is that industry knows it will not get any benefits out of such research.
I would like now to turn to the very sincere statement that was made by the Prime Minister. We have read in the Press a good deal about the importance of that statement and how much it would mean to the workers of this country. I hope I shall not be thought to be disrespectful if I say that the Prime Minister reminded me very much of an elderly


science master turning the wheel of a Wimshurst machine, and producing a pale spark of high voltage, but no power whatever. It was a disappointing statement when we had expected so much. It is no good pressing on the accelerator furiously if one puts on the brake at the same time. I urge the Prime Minister to go into the country and to listen with a receptive ear to what the manufacturers and engineers have to say about production. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, appreciates the difference between plans and orders and the effects of those plans and orders. The Minister of Supply is stumping round the country saying that he is in charge of engineering. I wish he would listen to what the engineers have to say, and I wish he would make sure that everyone in the Cabinet really knew what is going on in industry and what is the effect of the Government's precious plans.
I would like to give one or two specific examples rather than to give generalisations. I will refer to one or two things that have happened recently in factories which I know. Two months ago, in one factory, a skilled turner, one of the three employed, was called up. He was sent into the Royal Air Force, not to be a skilled turner, but to go on a training course to become a storeman, which is not a skilled employment. The result is that nobody, neither the Service into which he has been drafted nor the firm from which he has been taken, gets the benefit of his skill. In another instance of a more serious nature, a large machine-tool firm in my constituency was notified last November that about 135 of its skilled men were to be called up. This would imperil its export programme At the same time—and such is what we must learn to expect in State planning—the firm received a call from a Ministry of Aircraft Production official who demanded the speedy delivery of some machine tools required for a factory still making aeroengines for fighter aircraft. I hope we shall not see many more examples of that type of planning.
One hears a good deal about a manpower budget. It sounds very smooth, smart and streamlined, but have the Government any real policy with regard to manpower? Perhaps the Minister of Labour will inform us later whether there

is any real policy, or whether it is simply a matter of makeshifts and odd jobs here and there. For example, there is the question of electric motors. Electric motors are not a very popular subject to discuss in Debate, and motor cars attract public attention much more; but electric motors are probably much more important to the welfare of this country. Not only are they essential for driving machine tools, looms and a thousand and one other applications, but they are essential for domestic refrigerators and many other domestic appliances.
I urge the House to consider the importance of small electric motors, the production of which is seriously held up at present by the shortage of a few workers. It is a question of women coil winders. It is not that these women never existed. They were in the engineering factories during the war, but they have been drawn away into the cotton industry. I agree it is important we should have women in the cotton industry, but the numbers required for coil winding are very small, whereas thousands are required for the cotton industry. It will make very little difference to the output of shirts if 200 coil winders are in the cotton industry, but it will make a very big difference indeed to the number of finished electric motors produced. At the present time the position is so serious that many skilled men employed in the later stages of electric motor manufacture are working short time, because they cannot get coils from the coil winders, who have been sent off to the cotton mills of Lancashire. I do not see in that any evidence of a manpower budget. I call it a hopeless, makeshift, hit-and-miss policy. That is the whole trouble.
If only the Minister of Supply would go to the engineering factories and find out what is happening, he would be doing the country a much better service. I am afraid that Members of the Government are too much interested in the publicity aspects of these matters—in the cotton industry only where it affects the production of clothes, and the engineering industry only where the production of motor cars is concerned; and, of course, the Minister of Supply is still interested in his immovable circus of white elephants, the Royal Ordnance Factories, which he is trying to coerce into forms of production for which


they were never intended. I would rather that the Minister of Supply and the Minister of Labour turned their attention to the production of such small homely articles as grinding wheels. That is a small industry which attracts very little public attention, but which is vital to our welfare. This small industry engaged in the production of grinding wheels has no priority for men, materials, plant or buildings, but without an adequate supply of grinding wheels the whole engineering industry would soon be at a standstill. There would be no grinding wheels for the finishing processes of the components themselves, and no wheels for sharpening the tools required in the earlier stages of production. That industry excites no attention from Ministers because it is not in the public eye, and therefore, is not the subject of political pressure.
I would like to refer briefly to the problem of manpower. Unlike certain hon. Members opposite, I feel that we must get accustomed to a more or less permanent shortage of manpower. This means a revision of all our ideas about output, production and the control of labour. I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) who suggested, "No work, no food." I hope there are some more humane incentives that can be given. I agree that formerly the fear of unemployment kept men at work, but now, thank goodness, that incentive no longer applies. Nevertheless, it is essential for the Government to decide what alternative incentive there shall be.
I do not think it is right that we should regard this problem as a competition of amenities, of bigger and better loud speakers and canteens, of pictures painted on the walls of the factories. Nor do I think we should try to build a Babel-like tower of increasing wages reaching to the heavens. I want to know what is the Government's policy in regard to providing the incentive. If we are merely to have a competition of amenities, with an ever increasing rise in wages we shall find that unless it is accompanied by a greatly increased output the losing industry in the race—whether it be the foundries, the mines, or what happen at the moment to be the modern industries—will always be short of labour, and the winners will be, by no means sure of their fate. I think that is one of the greatest problems of the many which have been suggested to the Government today

as problems which must be dealt with. There is urgent need for them to get out among the manufacturers, whom they are so glad to chastise, and find out what their difficulties really are, and to try to help them and not to harass them.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The economic equilibrium of the world has been upset by the most terrible and devastating war in which mankind has ever been involved, and it is very opportune that this Committee should be giving consideration this week to the serious economic situation in which our country finds itself. In order that my observations may be considered in correct perspective, I would remind the Committee—and I hope, perhaps, those in other parts of the world who are now considering our economic position, as well as some of our fellow countrymen—of two statements. The first was made by the Chief of the American General Staff, General Marshall, who wrote:
 We were given time to organise and deploy our forces through the heroic refusal of the Soviet and British people to collapse under the blows of the Axis forces. They bought this time for us with the currency of blood and courage.
We should remember this, and those in other parts of the world should remember it too while Britain is in the present serious economic situation. Another statement was made on 19th November, 1940, by Mr. Henry Stimson, the United States Secretary for War. He paid a striking tribute to the British workers when he said:
 British workers today are producing as men never produced before. By their labour they are turning their island home into an unconquerable citadel of freedom. This unconquerable effort has been made under the leadership of labour itself, which today is the backbone of the British fight for freedom.
In our approach to our economic problems, and in considering the question of output, we should take account of the fact that our fellow countrymen have passed through the greatest strain that has ever been suffered by any people in the history of the world. The British people have made a Herculean effort during the war. They have strained themselves and now they are slowly but surely recovering. Our gigantic war effort has created obsolescence in industry and difficulties of conversion. Nevertheless the conversion from war to peace is proceeding more


steadily and more smoothly in our industries than it is in any other part of the world where there is not a planned economy. The Government's legislative programme, based upon the election statement contained in "Let Us Face the Future "is being put through the House smoothly and with relative speed.
There is a growing realisation throughout the country that we need to be seriously concerned about our economic situation. The Prime Minister, this afternoon, stated that he preferred to measure the volume of the nation's production rather than the output per man hour. Those of us who are closely associated with them know that the workpeople themselves measure not the volume of production or output per man hour, but in the most scientific manner, in seconds. Therefore I think we should apply the same scientific measurements in order to ascertain the output of our industries. It has now been accepted throughout the world, among all scientific industries, that the best method of measurement of output is per man hour, and we need to be seriously concerned about the output per man hour in our country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) ought not to have built up his indictment against this side of the Committee. The indictment can be built up against those who have been responsible for determining our industrial policy between the two wars for it is they who are responsible for the present position. If anyone is not prepared to accept my view, I ask him to read the publication "The Tools For The Next job," published by the Tory Reform group just a year or two ago.
If Britain is to build up the export trade which we all desire, we must be concerned about the cost of production and the overhead charges, such as finance and landlordism, superimposed upon the direct production costs. We also need to be very concerned about our man-power. A very great change has taken place between 1938 and the present time. There are relatively few now employed directly on production in this country. All students of industrial affairs must be very worried about the increasing number engaged on administration, on transport and in services of all kinds, such as distribution, and the position is now more

serious than ever in the past, because, according to the Government's White Paper published recently, we are to retain 1,700,000 in the Armed Forces and in the supply industries. I want to ask the Government to re-examine this position. Are they satisfied that this country can stand these commitments? Let me make it crystal clear that we, on this side of the Committee, and the trade union movement in particular, are prepared to face up to all our responsibilities in connection with this manpower problem which makes it imperative to increase the output per man hour by a large percentage as soon as possible.
This cannot be done by the crude old methods of asking our people to work harder. Our people in the main have worked harder and faster than the people in any other part of the world. We cannot judge them in the present situation, we have to judge them by how they worked in the past, or. how they worked during the war. The position we have now reached is that they need more horsepower at their disposal, more mechanical appliances, better organisation, and scientific management so that we can get better results from the human energy which is put into industry. This means a policy of large-scale electrification, of national planning. Today's Debate is a big step in the right direction, but it needs to be continued each year, or periodically, in order that we can examine the results obtained during the previous 12 months, so that we can benefit from our experiences and adapt our plans accordingly. Therefore I advocate that after this week's Debate the Government should re-examine the position and adopt a policy of real national planning.
Real national planning can only be carried out by those who accept our economic understanding of industry, and the logical conclusion of real national planning is the acceptance of our political philosophy. Therefore, I advocate that since our fellow countrymen have made a gigantic effort to save the world, and since we could not have done that except by having national plans and a drive behind them, and national unity, so I am now appealing to the Government to lead our fellow-countrymen in order that we can apply the same methods which won us the war to winning the economic battle in which Britain w3l be involved.


If this policy for national planning is accepted, then we need to carry out a policy of the re-equipment of our industry as soon as possible, and we need a policy of modern transport as my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Mr. Lee) pointed out Within a few years this country will be faced with the need to relate our productive capacity to the consumption needs of the people, and that can only be carried out by those who accept our economic ideas of life. I would ask every hon. Member and right hon. Gentleman listening this evening to remember that.
Can we be told tomorrow, when the Government spokesmen are replying, what is the Government's economic machinery? What changes have been introduced by the Government in dealing with economic affairs? Practically the whole of the country now, including hon. Gentlemen opposite, are committed to a policy of full employment. It was contained in the Coalition Government's White Paper. Are we designing machinery to enable us to carry oat this policy? In my view the Members of the Cabinet are far' too busy to be laying down national plans themselves. Is there an economic committee of the Cabinet? If so, should not they determine policy, determine the specifications, and then submit them to a national economic planning council to be drawn up? Then the duty of this national economic planning council, in co-operation with each industry, should be the setting up of industrial targets so that the managerial staffs, the administrative staffs, and all those employed in industry would know the target towards which they were working each 12 months. As a result of working towards those targets we could then re-examine the position each year in this House in the same way that we examine our finances each 12 months.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is making a very interesting point about targets. I would only ask him one question, since he is apparently attacking his own Government over targets. There was one conspicuous example of a target having been set recently by the Minister of Fuel and. Power, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman with what result. We all know that production has fallen seriously short of it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a most unfair interjection to make, but as the right hon. Gentleman asked the question I will face up to it. The present position of the mining industry is an indictment of a generation of Tory Government in this country.

Mr. Hudson: That may be so, but it does not alter the fact that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting the setting of targets when they do not work.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is far better to have a target to aim at than managing in the haphazard way we have been doing in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman was familiar with industry he would know that that was the way to get results, by providing incentive. It is accepted now by all modern managements that if they set a goal they get better results than when there is no incentive at all. During the war we all worked together to win the war, and we can achieve the same results in peace if we have industrial targets. Therefore, I am pleading that this national economic planning council should be asked to allocate the manpower in the national interest, and then the percentage of the national income to industry, housing, Government services, transport and distribution.
The time has arrived when all modern industrial States must adopt a policy of comprehensive economic planning aiming at maximum production and maximum consumption by the people for whom they are catering. Less than 100 years ago human energy was the most efficient; now machines are many thousand times more efficient than human energy. Calculated on a 24-hour basis, the latest turbine has 9,000,000 times the rate of output of the human body and now, instead of appealing to the individual to work harder, people will do their duty if they are given a lead like they were given in the war. What they require is more horsepower and more mechanical equipment at their disposal. Then the people of our country will get results. I ask the Government to re-examine the position and consider setting up a national economic planning council so that this country can adopt some modern methods in order to win the economic battle in the same way as we made our gigantic contribution to winning the world battle for freedom.

8.50 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: With a great deal that has been said by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) I am in agreement because I know he is a practical man. But naturally I do not follow him all the way. One thing which has run through the Debate tonight and on which there has been universal agreement, is that production is the key to our problem. Hon. Members have made various comparisons, but the fact remains that those who have been endeavouring to compare the problem with our prewar effort, find that in a great many cases we are at present considerably below the prewar tempo. In some cases, the tempo of production is higher than it was where exactly the same class of goods have been made in the prewar years and right through the war. With improvements in equipment and various aids, the speed has increased, but in all the cases where there has been a complete changeover from peace production to war production and now back again, in the works I have been investigating the tempo is not comparable with that of before the war. Men from the Forces come back and ask what has happened in the factories; why are they not working as they did before the war?
I have had estimates taken, and have discussed the matter with other industrialists, and we have been to meetings with the Board of Trade. We find that today in many sections of industry, we are getting only 60 to 70 per cent, of what we obtained from the same organisations before the war. I have tried to picture what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to do in a few years' time and have been comparing 1938 with a future normal year, say, 1948. At present it is very difficult to abstract figures, which have any real bearing on the position. We are in a transition stage. The White Paper on future defence shows that. But in trying to estimate what conditions will be like in 1948, which is the year the Government actuary gave when dealing with national insurance figures—and comparing them with 1938, we find that with national defence, war pensions, civil injuries, service of the debt, education, housing and other expenses there is a total of something like£908 million without the cost of social services. We have a very big extra burden for war pensions and the service of debt will be more than

doubled. Education and housing will cost a great deal more. Other expenses have gone up in the changes in the value of money and the increases of Government staffs, to which we have to add the subsidies provided to keep the cost of living where it is. This means that we shall have to meet an addition of at least£1,000 million without taking into account the cost of the social services. As regards these, the Government actuary has estimated that the cost to the Treasury in 1948 will be£175 million going up in 10 years' time to£ 243 million, in 1968 to£ 367 million and in 1978 to£ 452 million.
Then we have not finished; we have to add family allowances and expenses under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill which we considered last week. We are preparing a Budget which will run into figures which are startling in the extreme. Taking full account of the change in the value of money, it is quite clear that we must have a great deal larger national income than we had in 1938 in order to carry all these charges to which we have committed ourselves. That has to be earned.
As I tried to say when speaking a fortnight ago on the National Insurance Bill, there is no mystery about finance. You either earn it with your own hands or somebody else earns it for you. We agreed on this last time, and I have said it again, as I knew hon. Members opposite would agree with it. But that takes effect equally at both ends. It applies to the people to whom hon. Members opposite and I object, the hangers-on in the City who make their money on sidelines, and make" it without working. I detest those as much as hon. Members opposite do. I hate a man to come along and say he has done very well out of work I have been doing for years. But it applies equally to the man who, through misfortune, ill-health and other circumstances, is unable to earn and who has to rely on the State providing for him. Somebody else has to earn that money. There is no mystery. We have to face the fact that with this enormous expenditure before us, somebody has to earn the money. We are in agreement there.
It is not a case, and I hope I will not be accused of doing so, of taking sides for management against workers. Both


have to study this question and renew their efficiency. The burden is equally on both. Managements, generally speaking, are doing this. The Press will tell you so. There are new institutes and groups and investigations going on to see how management can improve itself for the tasks which lie ahead of it. Visits are being made to the United States to study methods there. Unfortunately, we cannot get the transport which we would like to have or more people would go there, and the Board of Trade knows that. Before the war, the organisation with which I am connected, always had a dozen or more people over in America to study their methods.
But do not let us imagine that we can take American methods and use them in this country in exactly the same way. This is a small country with a smaller population. Americans are much more standardised than we are. When I was over there a year ago, I had to attend a meeting of bankers and industrialists. We sat around a table and every one of those gentlemen sitting round the room was apparently wearing the same type of shirt and collar. I was the only man wearing a print shirt in the room. I went into a shop—there was no reason why I should not buy some clothing—but I could get nothing but white duck shirts with polo collars. I got one or two though they only come down about here—six inches short. But the Americans are standardised and they all wear them. We are a much more individualistic country than that. People turn round and say, "Why do you not make standard goods—standard motor cars?" Our people will not be driven. They like to have a selection.
When one brings back American methods to this country one has to Anglicise them. We are not overlooking the fact that we can learn a great deal from America, but it is a point of great interest that one cannot merely take something from America and introduce it over here. In America one finds numbers of Englishmen. In conversation I found that the average Englishman who goes over there can do the average American's job, but bring the average American over here, and he has almost to go back to school to learn how to work in our factories and organisations, because they are so different. What I have said shows

that we are alive to the fact that management has to play its part, and has to renew and revive itself, and be more efficient in the days to come.
Why are we having all this talk about our present production situation? I have been dividing the reasons under two heads, those that will pass automatically and those that will not unless we do something about them. One of the reasons we are having this difficulty with production at the present time is the change over in the personnel. The other day I studied some figures of an organisation in which something like 27,000 people were engaged. In the last six months 8,674 people had left, and 5,159 new people had come in. People have gone back home; girls who came from Scotland, Ireland and Wales have returned. Their places have been taken by other workers, who have come back from the Services; men are taking up their jobs after their leave. There is a change over of that nature, and all that it means in an organisation. It is a terrific problem, and greatly retards the progress of reconversion. Those who come in have to re-learn, even if they were there before the war. Five or six years away in another job means that to a certain extent they have to start over again. One does not blame them; that will pass.
There is not only the change over of workers, but of products. In some cases the same product, or something like it, has been made during the war years, but not in all cases. In more cases, the product is totally different. Machinery has to be taken out, new plant installed and new tools made. Retooling is a long, laborious job. Some people, when I have talked to them about tools, thought I was talking about hammers and chisels and the like. That is not so. The tools to which I am referring are special equipment; they go on to machines. These elaborate tools have to be made, and made by hand, and it is a long, laborious, slow job. All that has to be done. While that is going on one finds that factories are being altered; in some instances buildings are being turned upside down. It is not easy to get building licences, so we find new production work going on side by side with bricklaying inside the factory, and we do not get the best production either in quantity or quality.
We have all sorts of shortages and bottlenecks inside the factory. Material


—the President of the Board of Trade will be pleased to hear this—has been better than we expected it to be, but bottlenecks that slow up the flow of production are irritating in the extreme—such as lines of motor cars being held up because the little bulbs that go in the dash lamps are missing. The result is that work is piling up, and we have enormous quantities of work in progress which is getting in the way.
Those are things which will pass. They are inevitable. We went through a similar period after the end of the last war. Things were not as bad as they are this time because there was not the same upheaval. We got through then; we shall get through it again. The weariness due to war is bound to pass as the war gets further away. Though war weariness may pass, weariness may remain. That is one of the things about which we have to do something. On the question of food I am not going to say anything, except that my doctor and those investigating the conditions say it is not only a question of quantity, but of variety. We cannot all live on tabloids or doctors' prescriptions. We want a certain variety in our food. That is what we miss now. We have not the vitality, the quickness off the mark, which we used to have. We cannot grumble about that. We have been very well nurtured. We have done very well indeed but there has been an effect upon people.
When I think how the women have worked all through the war years and when I remember the burden they carried, I take my hat off to them. We ought to be very sympathetic towards them when they ask whether we would mind if they had an easier time now. Another point is that there is a lack of incentive today. There are two reasons why people work. One of them is the bad old reason, the fear of the sack. That, we are all agreed, will be removed as the new methods and ideas take root and are carried out. The second reason why people work is for the sake of what they can get out of it. It is in human nature. As a boy I worked very hard in order to save up to buy something. I do not believe I ever worked as ayoung man for sheer love of work. I do not think it is natural in a human being to work for the sheer love of work. I feel on this subject that we

have to get back the incentive. We remove the fear and then we must put in its place a double incentive. Today, there is not much incentive. People hate taxation; I do myself. I have got used to it, but I did not like it when tax was first levied upon me. I can understand the people feeling, "Why should the Government have it?"
The result is, as has been said from the other side, that people take it a little easier because they do not want to pay the taxes. There is a terrible shortage of goods in the shop windows. We shall get over that in time. There is, however, something else to be considered. Throughout the war we generated ideas and allowed them to grow until, I feel, there is a danger of them becoming an absolute menace. We talked about the better life, a fuller life, and we meant it, but I am afraid the public were misled. When we tried to "pipe down" and say, "Look here, it is not going to be as easy as you think," officials said, "Now, don't discourage the people. Remember that morale must be maintained," and so the ideas went on and they have taken root. They were ideas, quite naturally, of more pay, less hard work, holidays and retirement at an earlier age. War is not the route by which we obtain these conditions. War activity is a very different thing from peace activity.
I have a quotation from a United States journal which I picked up, which I have not got time to read. It points out from the American point of view that the productive organisations cannot guarantee to give all the precise jobs and the rates of pay which might be desired and that adjustments from war conditions to peacetime work cannot be escaped solely because in some instances it is painful. We do not have a war in order to improve the world. We can improve the world by better means than that. A great deal of emphasis has been laid on our improved social services, but the mental effect on many people during this period seems to be that they thought they were going to get things. That is natural but they did not think, and we did not tell them, how it was all to be achieved.
There is a false idea associated with our wartime expenditure that the Government would pay. The Government have not got a bean. It is our money they have, We pay the taxes, and all they do


is to hold the money. The national income, as I am always telling our people, must be increased, and the greater it is the more all will benefit, and the less it is the more all will suffer. People who have money do not sit on it; they pay it into a bank, and the bank uses it, or they spend it and so it goes round, until we all benefit in the long run. To increase the national income will benefit the whole population in due course, but nationalisation is no answer. I think it is the reverse. I am told a story, by a man who swears it is true, but hon. Members know what these stories are, about a man who asked a miner if he believed in nationalisation. The miner said, "Oh, yes." When he was asked, "What do you expect to get out of it? "the miner replied," Well, for one thing, it will get rid of all this damned Government interference."
This is a question of attitude of mind. We have had reference to the Dunkirk spirit, which was greatly admired, but I would remind the Committee of the terrific effort that we made after Dunkirk. We had a marvellous spurt, but the actual production was not as great as was thought. The real benefit was that it produced the spirit by which we progressed in 1941-42-43. Workers got used to their jobs, and it was the sustained effort that produced the results afterwards. We have not that spirit now, and, therefore, we have not the prospects. The question is, How are we going to produce it? We have the same people who could reproduce that same spirit, but I hope we have not to face the same disaster. We want to get the Dunkirk spirit back into our people, and we shall get through all our difficulties.
There is much talk about owners, and the repeated demand to take over industries and nationalise them. It is said, "We can do without the owners." That may be, but it presumes the existence of mines, railways and workshops. Who has created them in the past and who is going to create them in the future? Industry is not a power in the world like something waiting to flow from a tap. It is created every day by personal effort. Industries are dying and others are taking their places, but I am not prepared to say that industrial progress will be achieved simply by official guidance. The Treasury does not take chances. When I listened the other day to the Debate on the Investment

(Control and Guarantees) Bill I wondered what would have happened to The Great Horseless Carriage Company of 50 years ago, when they wanted to raise capital to put motor cars on the roads. Today we have aeroplanes, electricity and radio, which have all grown up because people took chances. I am afraid we are going to limit progress. Let the big concerns have a chance, but let us also encourage the young and adventurous. This Empire has been made up by adventurers, and though, today, we may not do as much adventuring abroad as did Drake and Frobisher, many find an outlet for their adventurous spirit in business. They are the few, of course, because the majority of our people want security and comfort. There are a number of adventurers taking chances. Some of them fail, like the early motor pioneers, but others succeed, and it is those upon whom we depend. I am afraid that this attitude of mind for controlling, organising and directing is going to freeze us in our present difficulties, and that will mean less elasticity and less progress if we deny the new people the opportunity of taking chances and making the most of their opportunities and ideas. We should help them all we can. instead of controlling them or making them ask for special permission.
Look at the changes I have seen in my short life. Fifty years age it was a different world from the one in which we live today. Now we have motor cars, aeroplanes, telephones, radio, cinemas, refrigerators—the whole life of the nation has changed. It is a completely altered world and, in my view, there is just as likely to be an altered world in the next 50 years. I do not want to see this world frozen into its present state If we freeze life in Great Britain under a rigid system, what hope is there of maintaining our place in this competitive world with people who are not hampered as we are'' If we do not hold our place in the world, what hope have we of maintaining the people of this densely populated country and giving them improved standards, or even of maintaining the old ones? I want to see economic freedom given to the young men to go out and adventure and rebuild the industries which in time are bound to die I do not want to see them frozen by control or Government action.

It being a quarter past Nine o'clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No- 14, to put forthwith


the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

Whereupon the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION BILLS

So much of the Lords Message [20th February] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills considered:

Select Committee of Six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session:

Mr. Gilzean, Mr. Goodrich, Mr. Hector Hughes, Major Guy Lloyd, Mr. Marlowe and Mr. Monslow to be Members of the Committee:

The Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Mathers.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such 0f the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLIES AND SERVICES(TRANSITIONAL POWERS)

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I beg to move,
 That the Order in Council, dated 20th December, 1945, with respect to Defence Regulations relating to the Control of Transport (S.R. amp; O., 1945, No. 1623), a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.
The object of this Motion is to remove from the Statute Book a regulation known as Regulation 73B which we on this side of the House regard as unnecessary, and indeed odious. In the course of my remarks, which I hope to keep reasonably short, I want to say what that regulation does, why it was originally introduced and why we think it is no longer needed. I am not going to read the whole regulation. I can say what it does quite simply and shortly. It gives the Minister of War Transport power to prohibit any man in-this country from carrying goods in his

own motor lorry for more than 60 miles. I want to make two observations about a regulation of that kind. The first is that before one could tolerate a regulation which takes away from a man the rather elementary right of carrying his own goods about the country, a very powerful case indeed would have to be made out. The second observation is that the effect of this regulation is not restricted to just a comparatively few—a few thousands— people who happen to earn their livings in the transport industry by carrying other people's goods. It affects them, of course—it affects the 60,000 road hauliers—but it also affects everybody who, in peacetime conditions, would wish to carry their own goods in their own vehicles—the ordinary " C " Licence holders. It affects, too, not only the people who run lorries, but every phase of production in this country. It affects every farmer who wants somebody to pick up his crop because he does not want it left lying on the ground. It affects every shopkeeper who wants to get his goods not only to his shop but distributed from his shop.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in Order in raising Regulation 73B of the Defence Regulations, 1939, in view of the fact that the Order which we are being asked to annul does not make any alteration whatsoever to Regulation 73B?

Mr. Speaker: The only point which may be legitimately raised, I think, is whether the Order should apply to peacetime or not. An Act of Parliament has laid it down that this Order may be prolonged, but it is in Order to suggest that it is not applicable to peacetime, and that is the point of this Motion.

Mr. Hale: The point I was endeavouring to put, Mr. Speaker, was that the hon. Member is endeavouring to insert in the regulations words repealing Regulation 73B. He has tabled a Motion for the annulment of this Order which makes no alteration to Regulation 73B, and he is now trying to insert in the regulations additional words repealing Regulation 73B. That is what the hon. Member said was the object of his speech.

Mr. Speaker: That, of course, would be out of Order.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am obliged for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to explain the effect of this regulation. It is always important, in presenting a case to the House of Commons, to try to say as shortly and simply as one can what it is all about. Having said what it is all about, I want to say, in your own words, Mr. Speaker, why I think it is not applicable to peacetime, and I am going to restrict myself to within those limits.
As I was saying, it affects a great many people who are not immediately interested in transport. I think one ought to explain—and 1 think it is necessary for the understanding of the case—why the regulation was initially introduced. One ought to say that in fairness to the Minister of War Transport. It was originally introduced in May, 1943. At that time we were at war, and all our activities—our industrial activities and our transport system—were subordinated to the requirements of military operations. For that purpose the Minister of War Transport introduced an organisation known as the Road Haulage Organisation, the effect of which was, and still remains, to bring under the control of the Minister all long-distance road haulage.
I have to refer to the Road Haulage Organisation because, as I think the Minister will agree, the two are so closely interlocked that it is impossible to discuss the one without making some reference to the other. I do not want to give a long talk about the Road Haulage Organisation. Quite shortly, its objects were: To economise in fuel and rubber; to maintain the vehicles in a state of readiness in case of any particular emergency; and to ensure that in times of stress, which might well arise in war time, they could be swung into the places and at the times they were particularly required. We are not concerned tonight to say whether the Road Haulage Organisation was a success or a failure. The Minister will remember it was reported on by an impartial all-party Committee on National Expenditure, which made one of the most damning reports on any Government organisation that has ever been made.
For our purpose, I think it is sufficient to say that no one willingly used that organisation. The "C" licensee, the man who wanted to carry his own goods, much preferred to carry his own goods in

his own vehicle rather than let the organisation carry them. For that reason, and in order to preserve the Road Haulage Organisation in war, the Minister of War Transport passed 73(B) and said that nobody could carry any goods over 60 miles, that they had to go with the Road Haulage Organisation. That was why it was introduced originally. The case we want to present this evening is that, whatever the original justification for that organisation or that regulation, the situation today is very different. We are no longer at war. Our principal occupation is no longer the manufacture of war material. The principal customer is no longer the Government. Above all, costs are no longer a secondary consideration—far from it. Instead of that situation we have a state of affairs in which there are a great complex of demands and customers, and in which the question of costs is an absolutely vital consideration, both in the home and in the export markets. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it a little hard to say that a transport organisation and system which was suitable to war is equally suitable to the situation which exists at the present time.
The Minister has already altered his policy. In wartime the object of the Road Haulage Organisation was really to keep as many lorries off the road as possible; we wanted to deflect all the transport off the roads. But that is not what he is doing now. What the Minister is trying to do now is to remove as much as possible the burden now on the railways. The railways have been subjected to an almost intolerable burden in the amount of transport they are expected to carry. A fact which I think was referred to earlier today, is that unless they can get a good deal more coal the railway problem may become quite impossible. Therefore what the Minister is trying to do is to get more goods carried by road, not less. In such circumstances surely the need for 73 (B), the restriction on men carrying goods over 60 miles, has entirely gone. Its object has disappeared. There is no question of trying to create a pool of transport which can be used in some kind of strategic emergency. We are living in an entirely different world and in different circumstances. It is perfectly true that we are still short of labour and of fuel, but surely difficulties of that kind


are bad enough in themselves, without imposing artificial restrictions. One might say to a man that the limit of his expenditure was to be£7 a week, but one would not say to him that he had to spend£1 a day,£1 every day, without allowing for the fact that he might want to spend nothing one day, saving a little towards the end of the week to do his shopping at the weekend. If we are short of fuel and rubber already, it will mean that some people will not be able to travel as far or as much as otherwise, but within those limits do let us allow transport operators to make the best use of the vehicles they can, and they are the best judges of that.
The real reason for maintaining this regulation has nothing to do with the efficiency of transport. The real reason for maintaining it is a matter of political doctrine rather than of practical advantage. I know perfectly well the background to the right hon. Gentleman's nationalisation plans. He is going to take his Road Haulage Organisation and make it the basis of the State monopoly of road transport. He knows, and everybody else knows, that the public as a whole will be no more anxious to use the Road Haulage Organisation once it has been nationalised than they are today. They will want to run their own lorries, and so, if he is to maintain that system at all, he can only do it by restricting everyone who wants to use some other form of transport. There is nothing surprising about this. The plans and policy of the Labour Party have been set out pretty fully in the report of the Trade Union Congress.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to keep in Order, he must not deal with the policy or with the report of the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am most anxious to keep within the limits of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but am I not entitled to explain to the House the reason why the right hon. Gentleman seeks to keep this Regulation in time of peace?

Mr. Speaker: The Order was made under the Statutory Rules and Orders Act, which was passed by this House, and one cannot go behind that.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not seeking to go behind that, but I did understand, Mr. Speaker, that your earlier Ruling was that I was entitled to present to the House the case against keeping this particular regulation in time of peace, and to say why it was unnecessary. I think in doing that I am entitled to explain the precise effect of its operation in peacetime and the reason why it is being maintained, not for any practical advantage but as part of some long term nationalisation scheme.

Mr. Speaker: That goes right outside the provisions of the Statutory Rules and Orders Act, and, therefore, I think that to pursue that argument further is really beyond the scope of this Motion.

Earl Winterton: Suppose it was applied to the particular Order. Suppose the hon. Member said that the reason for the Order was a political purpose— would that be out of Order?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, certainly, distinctly out of Order, because it has been passed under an Act passed by this House of Parliament.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I naturally bow at once to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am most anxious to keep within it, and I turn to my next point. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman is maintaining this Order is to bolster up the Road Haulage Organisation. I do not mind whether it is going to be nationalised or not; it is to bolster up what has been established, and maintain as a State monopoly all long distance road haulage. That has nothing to do with nationalisation plans; it is the situation which exists today. The fact is, and everybody knows it, that the Road Haulage Organisation as it exists at this moment is an organisation which, left to themselves, the farmers, traders and industrialists of this country would not use. It is already exhibiting some of the worst features of a monopoly. I will not go into all the elaborate details and examples which could be given, but I will give just one example of the way this Regulation is working at present. One of the things that a transport user wants at any time is this: if he is dissatisfied with one form of transport, he wants the rather elementary right of getting some other form of transport, giving better service


at a cheaper cost, and that is what he is precluded from doing under this Regulation. What happens when an ordinary trader in this country complains of the exorbitant cost of the Road Haulage Organisation? I have a letter here, addressed by a unit controller to a transport user who had complained of the increased cost. This is the sort of language in which this State monopoly addresses him:
We are afraid we cannot put any more five-ton vans at your disposal for a charge of£11 5s. as, frankly, we can do much better than the£12 10s. which was originally charged for the van placed at your disposal.
" We can do much better." Of course we can, if we are a State monopoly. What happens when a man complains in those circumstances? The letter goes on:
 We are afraid, in the future, you will find us not so disposed to inconvenience ourselves to the extent we have done in the past.
Would any private transport operator in this country have dared to address one of his customers like that? The reason why a monopoly can so address them is because this Regulation is on the Statute Book. The transport users of this country have no one else to whom they can turn. On this side of the House we think that that situation is wholly intolerable.
If the Minister has some other reason to which I cannot refer, let him say what it is. I have said enough to demonstrate that there is no practical advantage in it. All the original reasons for this wartime regulation have disappeared. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to show one practical consideration why it should remain on the Statute Book.

9.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to second the Motion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorney-croft) I take most exception to Regulation 73B contained in the Order. I must say that it seems a little cumbrous to have to oppose the whole Order in order to deal with only one of the regulations. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to take back his Order, remove this particular regulation and represent the Order without it. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth has already stated, and I want definitely to underline what he said, that the reasons why the regulation was brought into existence have disappeared, and the

circumstances have absolutely changed. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not admit that. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but if they require proof of what 1 say I would read the words which the then Minister used at the time the regulation was brought in. He said that the reason was
to accord that full measure of co-operation in the working of the Road Haulage Organisation which is essential for the success of the coming all-out effort to bring the war to a speedy conclusion.
Later, he said:
 We are not working in ordinary commercial conditions. Of course, if we.were, we would never ask for this regulation.
I suggest that those words implied that when war considerations were over, the regulations should be discontinued. I would therefore like to be informed, when the Minister replies, why he has changed the policy of his predecessor. The second reason why I oppose the regulation is because considerations now should be of an entirely different nature. What we want is to give the public the service which they require, and we want to give that service on a commercial basis. We want to eliminate waste and extravagance. When this regulation was under discussion before, it was suggested that the question of waste or of extravagance, quite rightly, was one of minor importance; but that is, surely, a very different thing today. If the industry is to be carried on under very close control, it must be carried on efficiently, and waste must be eliminated. The other suggestion I should like to put forward is that which the hon. Member for Monmouth has already stated—that if the public are to get a really first-class service and an efficient service, without the writing of the type of letter the hon. Member read out, the only way to ensure it is by a measure of free competition in the industry; so that if a letter of that type we have just had read out were sent to a particular individual he could say, "I am not going to employ this firm again."
I should also like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport that this question of change of face on the part of the Government has been made perfectly clear The kind of organisation going to work Regulation 73B could not work it in peacetime. If I may repeat the words of Sir Cyril Hurcombe, he said it was very difficult to get people


to realise that you could not always follow commercial rules m time of war; that admittedly much of what was done might be uncommercial and that they acknowledged the forbearance of the business men with whom they dealt in recognising that some of these things were unavoidable,, and not mere stupidity on the part of the bureaucratic machine. It is not an overstatement of the case. I do appeal to hon. Members to say that the considerations in regard to 73B have changed fundamentally. I do think we ought to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whatever the intentions for the long-term policy of His Majesty's Government may be, in the meantime to supplement a very definite understanding that was given to this industry, and to remove this particular regulation.
I also want to know, if this regulation is continued, what is to happen to the C licence. These vehicles have been specially constructed for the carrying of definite sorts of goods of a particular industry. They are, in other cases, constructed so that those goods can be carried without being packed. The vehicles are made for special purposes and if the vehicles are not to be permitted to journey for more than 60 miles, it seems ridiculous. Another argument put forward by the supporters of this regulation is that the regulation is carried out by business men and not by officials. But, really, that argument ought not to carry much weight, because even though they were at one time engaged in the industry, the fact is now that they are civil servants carrying out the orders and instructions issued by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of War Transport I do not want to labour points which have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth or to repeat them, but I would like to say that in my opinion there are two reasons for bringing forward this regulation.
One is economic—the fear of competition, the fear that they will lose their business, and the fear that the public would prefer to engage private and independent operators who would give service to the public. The other is because of the long-term policy of the Government. I would remind the Government that if you can nationalise an industry you can also denationalise it. In my opinion this regulation should be annulled: firstly, because

it was brought in as a wartime measure and the considerations which applied then are now finished and done with; and secondly, because you will only get a realy good service for the public,, who are the people particularly concerned, if you have an element of free competition in it, and also an element of courtesy.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I submit that the Order which it is sought, by this Motion, to annul, does not deal in any way with matters raised by hon. Members opposite. It makes two amendments in the law. It provides that Regulation 69 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939. shall be amended by the elimination of certain exemptions from the Rules Publication Act, 1893, as to the serving of notices. In other words it provides an additional precaution, and says that in future the Rules Publication Act shall apply and notices must be published in those cases. It provides, in relation to the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, that it shall not be necessary to apply for licences to the Traffic Commissioners in respect of vehicles operating under that Act—

Mr. Oliver Poole: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that this Motion would not annul Regulation 73B. I have here a copy of the Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 1623, and the last item of that Statutory Rule is 73B, which says:
 Power to limit distance for which goods may be carried by road.
I maintain that the Motion as it stands would in fact annul this regulation. May I have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on that point? There is the opportunity of annulling it if the House so decides.

Mr. Speaker: One may discuss this Order only in relation to its application in peacetime. It is not automatic that the Order goes on to the Statute Book but because of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act.

Mr. Hale: I did not make the statement which the hon. Member attributes to me. I was, however, about to make it, and I will now do so. The Order provides that there shall be no adaptation of Regulation 73B and that it shall remain unaltered and as it was published originally, under the Act passed by the


Conservative Government before the war—

Sir John Mellor: If the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the Statutory Rules and Orders, 1945, Nos. 1615-30, he will see on the front page:
 Such of the Regulations contained in Part III of the Defence(General) Regulations, 1939, as are specified in the Schedule to this Order shall have effect by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, subject to the adaptations specified in the third column of that Schedule.''

Mr. Hate: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), who has just intervened, did not pay adequate attention to you, Mr. Speaker, when you explained to the House that a Statute was passed giving power to continue the Orders, and it is only by virtue of the Statute that we can continue to impose the rules and regulations and Orders which govern our life today. There was one observation by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thoneycroft), which shows how little hon. Members opposite understand the position. He said that the war was over. The war against totalitarianism is, fortunately, over, but we are embarking on a war against poverty, disease, unemployment and the iniquities of our social system, which will be waged with the same vigour as the other war. For that, we need powers, and we are taking those powers. There is one comment which I desire to make about this Order. It has been my misfortune, in the past, that I have had to try to interpret Statutory Rules and Orders passed by this House. I hope I am not boasting, when I say that I have had some success in that direction, because as my interpretations were all wrong, and my clients normally failed to act upon my advice, they found themselves fortuitously pursuing the primrose path of rectitude. To understand this very short Order it is absolutely necessary to read the Statutory Rules and Orders, 1945, the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, the Roads Act, 1920, the Rules Publication Act, 1893, the Interpretation Act, 1889, the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, the Finance Act, 1920, and the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945. If you are a careful interpreter you will also read the

London Hackney Carriage Act, 1843, and the Metropolitan Public Car Act of 1869.
I am not blaming the Minister for this. These regulations were passed long before he assumed office and he is only amending them, but I say it is deplorable that the citizens of this country should have no opportunity of finding out what the law of the country is, that regulations should be passed in such a way as to make it impossible for the average citizen to understand them. The time has come to embark upon the great task of codification of, first the regulations, and then of the laws themselves. I am happy to say we have on these benches for the first time for many years men of sufficient enlightenment to do it. I hope the Minister when he replies will be able to say that steps are being taken to achieve that most desirable object.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I rise to support the Motion which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), but I find myself at a disadvantage because of my slight knowledge of the procedure in dealing with these matters. The object of the Motion is to call the attention to Regulation 73B, which we consider extremely unsatisfactory and which we want to get removed. One reason why we wish to oppose this regulation is that put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), namely, that where such machinery was necessary to fight the total war in which we were engaged previously now the war is of a different kind—to increase our exports and restore our industries. We do not want to fight that war by the same methods, and the same machinery, as those we used in the war against Germany. I do not want to repeat what was said as to the background of this regulation, but I support the hon. Member for Oldham in what he said about its complication. It is fantastic that a private trader, who wants to move his goods from one place to another, should have to study the Acts and the regulations which the hon. Member named. If this Motion does nothing more than result in the codification of the law, it will have been of inestimable advantage to the small trader.
Those who suffer worst under this regulation are the small and medium


traders who have "C" licences for one or two vehicles, or a small fleet of vehicles. During the war, there was not the same quantity of goods to be moved, or the same necessity for such traders to move them, and they were sent by rail, the railways giving such service as they could. Today, the situation is the exact opposite. The Minister has said that as little of this traffic should be carried by rail as possible, if it can be carried in any other way. But in certain districts railway companies have said that they will be unable to carry more traffic for along time.

Major Cecil Poole: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that the percentage of ordinary merchandise carried during the war by the railways was higher than it is today. If so, that is a complete fallacy.

Mr. O. Poole: During the war goods were carried, in the main, for war purposes and the client, so to speak, was the Government. Now, in the transition from war to peace, it is goods manufactured by industrialists which have to be moved to traders. The circumstances are quite different. Not only that, but the volume of goods is much greater and, as I have said, it is a fact that railways in certain districts are refusing to take more traffic.

Major Cecil Poole: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the quantity of traffic being moved today is greater than it was during the war. If so, I say again, that that is a complete fallacy. The number of occasions on which railways refused to carry goods during the war was immeasurably greater than now.

Mr. o. Poole: The point I was making, and from which I do not withdraw, is that the railways are unable to accept all the traffic they are offered, and that the Minister has issued directions saying that as much traffic as possible should be carried by road. In certain districts the railways are refusing to carry traffic.

Major Cecil Poole: They did that during the war.

Mr. O. Poole: Once the railways have refused to accept traffic, the small trader has no alternative but to offer the traffic

to the Road Haulage Organisation. They try to keep as much traffic as possible within their own organisation, and they try to find vehicles in which to move the goods. In many cases these vehicles are quite unsuitable for the purpose. Every day one gets reports from constituents about 5-ton lorries being sent to fetch small loads, and what is worse, vehicles being sent which are quite unsuitable for the carriage of the goods, with a consequent waste of time in loading and unloading, and damage to the goods in transit. While that is happening the licensee may himself have a suitable vehicle standing idle. Not only is he put to additional trouble, but he is put to additional expense. If he sends goods in his own vehicles, there is no packing to be done, no delay and very little trouble, whereas if the goods are sent either by rail or in a vehicle provided by the Road Haulage Organisation, they have to be packed, with a consequent waste of man-hours, wood and other materials used in packing.
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of War Transport will say, in his reply, that many permits have been issued to individuals to exceed the 60 miles limit, but those permits are not given unless the Road Haulage Organisation cannot accept the traffic, and the permits take three or four days to come. In the case of people engaged in horticulture or agriculture, the delay very often causes an absolute loss to them. In 1944, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport gave an assurance that Regulation 73B would be removed when it was no longer necessary. He could not say when that time would be. Now that the war has ended, will the Minister say when this Regulation can be removed, or what will be the circumstances in which it can be removed, so that small traders and industrialists with their own fleets of vehicles can again have the right to put their own goods in their own vehicles to run on roads for which they pay taxation?

10.4 p.m.

Major Niall Macpherson: The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) argued that the reasons for having this regulation have changed That, in itself, if not a sufficient argument for removing it, because there may still be good reasons


for the regulation remaining, but I would like to submit that there are better reasons for removing it. In the first place, the Supplies amp; Services (Transitional Powers) Act states that the provisions of that Act were for the purpose of so maintaining, controlling and regulating supplies and services as to secure a sufficiency of those essential for the wellbeing of the community or their equitable distribution. This regulation, which limits the radius of traffic to 60 miles, does quite the contrary. There are two good reasons which could be advanced for maintaining this regulation. The first would be on the score of efficiency, and the second on the score of economy. I give the Government full credit for having no ulterior motive at the present time. I am certain they will justify the regulation on the grounds of one or other of the reasons I have mentioned.
To deal first with efficiency, to be efficient industry must be flexible. During the war, obviously a line had to be drawn somewhere. Sixty miles may be a reasonable radius. Perhaps it should be described as the operative radius for vehicles if they are to go out, deliver, and return to base, but it does not follow that in the detailed case it is the best. Flexibility is required for efficiency.
The second argument would be for economy. There is a great place for economy in petrol and rubber, things which can only be purchased to a limited extent with sterling, but there are other equally important economies which also require sterling, and one of them is packing material. It is essential to bear this point in mind, because on the.method of carriage, whether it is by rail, by sea, or by road, depends the packing material that the manufacturer puts on his goods. It is obvious that if he has his own system for delivery by road he can put on a very much lighter packing material than if he does not know by what method his goods are to be delivered. Under the present system, if his goods have to be delivered beyond 60 miles he simply notifies the Ministry of War Transport and it is up to them to say by what method delivery will be made. The result is that to a certain extent he must take a risk and he puts on, shall we say a medium packing. From that a great number of claims results, and there is wastage.
In considering this matter there are two things for the "C" licence holder to consider. First of all, he may have to deliver in bulk to depots. Under the present system he must have a depot within a 60-mile radius it he is going to deliver the goods himself. If it is outside the 60-mile radius it is necessary for him to arrange with the Ministry of War Transport. There again there is a waste of time and a lot of misunderstanding and, in general, a lack of efficiency as compared with the system where a man controls the deliveries himself.
In the second place he may have a number of deliveries to make at or near his final destination. Here again the point of economy comes in. The biggest item in dealing with the delivery of goods is the number of times they are handled. If he has to deliver all the goods to one place and then some of them have to be reloaded to go on beyond, there is a waste, whereas if he can deliver them himself on the way he is able to effect the economy of not having to go back and deliver in detail.
Another point about delivery in bulk is that in fact the attitude of different Regional Commissioners varies very considerably. Some of them are prepared to allow concessions—delivery up to 75 miles—where others will not do so on any consideration. Another case is where the manufacturer wishes to deliver direct to customers. Here again the Ministry of War Transport will not accept what is known as a "drop" of less than two tons, whereas the individual manufacturer can of course deliver, and does in fact deliver, down to one cwt. Again, specialised knowledge is required, not only of the location of customers—which the Ministry of War Transport and those operating for them would not possess— but also of the times at which it is convenient for customers to receive delivery. Then again as the hon. and gallant Member for Penrithi was saying there is the question of specialised equipment and specially trained men. So there is this question. of wastefulness in the use of transport and, as far as the pool vehicles are concerned, when vehicles deliver their loads they then have to report at the other end to a pool which details the vehicles for other jobs, and the vehicles very often vanish into the gloom. What has to be remembered is that the


actual cost of running the fleets of vehicles—petrol, tyres, maintenance, etc.—is less than half of the total cost of the vehicles, and on the days when they are kept waiting through lack of liaison, there is further waste.
In summing up, I wish to say that there is wastefulness in personnel. First there are additional staffs—control staffs, enforcement officers or "snoopers" to see that the law is being obeyed, the people who have to handle, to reload, when goods are taken a certain distance to a depot instead of being delivered direct. We have idle vehicles and heavy packages resulting in wastage of materials and wastage of manpower and, finally, a general lowering of efficiency. Therefore, in my submission, Regulation 73B should be annulled.

10.12 p.m.

Commander Noble: I do not wish to detain the House long, but I would like to associate myself with this Motion and to quote a short paragraph from a memorandum supplied by the Ministry in which are set out the purposes for which the Road Haulage Organisation is designed. This memorandum states that this scheme is designed to ensure that:
" (i) No traffics are conveyed by road which should be carried by some other form of transport in the interests of conservation of oil and rubber.
(ii) Such traffics as are conveyed by road are moved at the lowest possible cost in vehicle-miles by the use of the most suitable vehicle for the particular movement and by the elimination to the greatest possible degree of partially loaded and empty mileage.
(iii) All vehicles included in the organisation are available to meet fluctuating demands and emergencies."
I hope that, in view of the very convincing arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister will see his way to support this Motion. If he does not, I hope he will tell us whether these aims I have just read out, have been achieved in fact, and also whether the conditions which necessitated them still obtain. I do not know whether the building which houses the Ministry has ever been called, or is ever likely to be called, "War Transport House." If it is, or if it ever will be, I feel now that hostilities are over, and especially in view of what the hon. Member has said, that the word "war" is somewhat redundant in that title.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I support my hon. Friends on this side of the House in moving for the annulment of this Regulation, and I suggest that the onus of proving that it is still needed rests upon the Minister. It is up to him to come here and prove to the House conclusively that it is necessary to carry on in times of peace a regulation which was brought in solely for the purposes of war. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will set a new example to some of his Front Bench colleagues, and give us a few facts, a few figures, and a few arguments which can appeal to our intelligence Two considerations alone would justify the retention of this Order. The first is that this scheme has been a success. Now, has it in fact, been a success during the time it has been in operation? Every shred of evidence produced to me and I think to most of my hon. Friends here—and which could be produced to hon. Gentlemen opposite if they would like to listen—is that the scheme has been a howling failure from beginning to end. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite have read the report of the Select Committee, because the arguments that were used in that report and the facts which are presented, are identically the same as the conditions which prevail today. I would like to read one paragraph from the report:
As a consequence of the failure of the control system there is much avoidable light loading and empty running, so that the ends desired by the Ministry of War Transport are defeated. Numerous cases were quoted where a convoy of empty lorries had been sent long distances while goods were awaiting transport to the very areas to which it was going. Not only does this add unnecessarily to the load on the railways, but it increases the depreciation of the vehicles, which suffer more from empty running than from carrying loads.
What has been the effect on the personnel in the transport industry? Let me quote again:
 Drivers are said to be losing heart and to be no longer interested in saving time on their trips; they feel that their labours are so frequently spent in useless journeys, with empty or only partially loaded vehicles, that any effort on their part is futile. One of the reasons given for this condition of affairs is that Unit Controllers have no financial incentive to see that lorries carry economic loads, since they are not acting for their firms but for the Ministry, and are not, therefore, interested to see that economy is observed on any particular journey.


It goes on to say:
Instances were given of drivers resigning their posts because they felt that they were not pulling their weight. There was general agreement that drivers feel that conscientious performance of their duties is neither appreciated nor desired.
Has there even been a more damning indictment of a Government scheme than that contained in the Select Committee Report? I have a letter, which has only just come in, and which states:
 Quite often our lorries have to stand idle while some Jack-in-trade before the war now comes into the road haulage organisation and carries the traffic. The fact is that the persons who know how to carry the traffic in the most economical manner as was proved before the war, are not allowed to do so while those inexperienced in traffic are handling it at great waste of rubber, material and labour.
Every shred of evidence such as was contained in the report of that Committee is applicable at this moment. I therefore suggest that the Minister has to convince the House, if he can, that the report is no longer true of what happens at this moment. The report of the Select Committee presented last year was a report by Members of all parties in this House, and there was no minority report. That report also suggests—and here again all the evidence I now get supports it—that the amount of empty running today is, on an average, three times what it was before the scheme came into operation, and that the charge per ton mile is often twice as much as it was before. The House should agree to continue this scheme only if it can be shown that it has been a success.
The only other consideration that would justify our supporting it, would be if the conditions were such as to justify its continuance. The conditions under which this scheme came into being were set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). Briefly, they were to save petrol and rubber, to maintain a central pool of vehicles, and also to act as a sort of strategic reserve during the war. The last consideration certainly does not apply. The second consideration no longer applies, but what about the consideration of saving petrol and rubber? To begin with, the petrol situation is not as stringent as it was during the war. Otherwise the basic ration would not have been restored, nor would the right hon. Gentleman have permitted coaches to run

between London and Blackpool. Even if the petrol situation were as stringent as it was during the war, such evidence as we have proves that petrol is being wasted, tyres are being wasted, and, what is more, the depreciation on the lorries is far greater than it need or should be.
Two other considerations have been put forward. When a trader buys a lorry, he does not just go and buy it as if it were a pair of boots. He buys a lorry specially designed for his trade. By this Road Haulage Organisation today, we are throwing away all these advantages. I have here a list of complaints from growers of agricultural produce in East Anglia, of case after case of goods being put in unsuitable lorries. What is more, lorries that are either far too large or far too small, are turning up. This sort of scheme is all right if one designs it sitting in a London office, or the back parlour of the Fabian Society, but it is quite unsuited to any sort of reality.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever had any intimate connection with the problems of the farming industry. A farmer has not the faintest idea what size of lorry he may want the day after tomorrow; it will depend on the weather tomorrow, and on other considerations. There are cases of three ton lorries arriving for one ton loads. Another point made has been in regard to packing. If there are two things of which we are short in this time of shortage of almost everything, they are paper and timber. An unnecessary amount of packing is going on, all of which would be avoided, if a man could put his goods in his lorry and take them away. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will not put up the specious case that it is easy to get exemptions, and that if one can put up a good case his Ministry is prepared to listen to it. We can show him ample evidence, not only that interminable delays occur in the consideration of applications, but that in the vast majority of cases the application is turned down out of hand.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman quite seriously: Do the Government want to help the industrial reconstruction of this country, or do they not? If so, then let them release transport, because transport is a cost factor in industry. What matters is not the cost of something in the


factory or of agricultural produce in the field, but the cost to the ultimate consumer. Today, when we try to send things by rail, there are fantastic delays of two and three weeks. At the same time, we have idle lorries all over the country standing by in many cases with idle drivers. I suggest to the House that no one outside a lunatic asylum would ever think that a central pool of transport; run by Government servants, with no financial interest at stake, could, in any circumstances, ever compete in speed, efficiency or cost, with the man who runs his own vehicles, and has to make them pay or go into the bankruptcy court. Two effects of this Government monopoly are clear. One of the features of all Government monopolies is that they dare not tolerate the existence of an efficient competitor. One of the effects of maintaining this regulation will be to create and maintain an artificial standard of inefficiency in the road transport industry. The other thing it will maintain will be an artificial standard of high freight charges. For what reason the Government wish to maintain those two artificial standards, I do not know, but I can guess.

10.25 p.m..

Mr. Butcher: I would like to associate myself with the Motion for the annulment of this regulation, perhaps with rather different remarks from those which have been made up to now. This was a regulation which is being continued under what the Government regard as a genuine contribution to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) described as the war against inefficiency and bad conditions. I will give the House two examples from my own constituency of how this particular regulation hampers the Government in their reconstruction problems. Boston is a seaport through which timber is imported. A firm there takes the timber and converts it into doors and window fittings for housing projects in the Midlands. This firm has its own lorries in its garage. It is not permitted to use its own lorries to carry its own manufactured goods into the Midlands, where they are urgently needed on housing sites. What happens? They are compelled to go to the Minister's Road Haulage Organisation and say, "We are not allowed to travel more than 60 miles. Please will you shift the stuff

for us? "The Minister very obligingly agrees. He brings in lorries from London, 110 miles away. I make no complaint against the Minister. The moment the need was pointed out to him—it was only-four days after private enterprise would have dealt with it—he sent the lorries another 100 miles. Perhaps as time goes on he will improve.
There is another case, as a result of which I would like to thank publicly the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary. The House will be aware that certain goods are on points. The grocer is compelled to keep a points bank and, therefore, the time of the delivery of the goods to him is a matter of real consequence. Equally, the factories are all very pressed nowadays for storage space and there must be a regular flow of goods. A canning factory in my constituency, which had suffered as a result of this regulation, wrote to me to see what I could do. I thought the best thing I could do was to go and see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. I would like to say how extraordinarily grateful I am to him for his action. What really was happening was, that 17,707,000 cans of peas had to be. shifted, otherwise production in the factory would stop. The hon. Gentleman is a real "go-getter." I told him about it and the next day, or the day after, 18 empty lorries, with a total carrying capacity of over 300 tons, travelled from London. I would like to thank him very much. These things had to be shifted and the Parliamentary Secretary succeeded in having them shifted. I am grateful to him. There were lorries in Boston, with a carrying capacity of 60 tons, which had been standing idle for five, six or seven days, which could have carried out the operation, but they were not allowed to be used to shift these things because of this regulation.
What is the real thing to which we' object in this Regulation? It is that it makes for inefficiency. It does not enable the ordinary trader to get his goods away as he wishes, either by employing his own lorries with " C" licences or by employing "A" or "B" licence holders. They are not allowed to travel more than 60 miles by road with an "A," "B" or "C" licence vehicle. They can do that brightly and happily, provided the vehicle is operated by the Road Haulage Organisation. The real answer to the


problem is that somehow, somewhere, inside the Ministry, somebody has to justify the existence of this Road Haulage Organisation. [Interruption.] An hon. Member says it is a vested interest] I do not think it is. I believe it is some conscientious civil servant who feels that it is his cross that he has to bear. I do appeal to the Minister to examine this organisation. It does not reflect credit on his Ministry. On the whole his Ministry, has served the country pretty well during the war. It has shifted the goods, moved the things to various parts of the country. But this Road Haulage Organisation, let him be assured, in the opinion of this country, is really the most inefficient of all Government Departments, and, let me add, I do not omit the Board of Trade.

10.31 p.m.

The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): It is desirable to remind the House of the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary used when presenting the Supplied and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill. He made it plain that this Measure was-being introduced because we intended to use these powers, and this evening the main complaint against myself appears to be that I am carrying out that undertaking. I would like to remind the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) that so far as I am concerned this question is not being determined on any political issue. When I want to deal with the road haulage problem in the setting of political policy, I can assure my hon. Friends opposite that it will be dealt with much more effectively than under these regulations at the moment. With reference to the need or the desire, to maintain restrictions of this character, I think at least I can claim that over the wide field of transport, and general policy with regard to services, and the convenience of the public, there has been a steady process of relaxation. We are dealing here with a very large volume of important traffic in this country. It should be looked at primarily according to the needs of the country at the present moment. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion to annul the regulation, admitted at least some parental responsibility—

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As a foster parent.

Mr. Barnes: He then proceeded to show how ashamed he was of its origin—no doubt the hon. Member's enthusiasm has cooled as a result of the recent mass meetings he has addressed on this subject.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: May I say that my claim to parentage is of a very fleeting, a very transitory nature? As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me may I say that one of the first things I did when I got inside the Ministry was to see how soon we could get rid of this organisation? At that time we were at war and all our plans were aimed at the removal of these restrictions at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member's stay at the Ministry was, I believe, also very fleeting. My only comment on the general position—and this will enable me to reply also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) that the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure applied to the administration of these regulations under the Coalition Government. The hon. Member appears to be unaware that there has been a change of Government, and that this Administration is much more efficient.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to give the House an impression of the efficiency of his Department? If so, I feel he should digest his breakfast before he starts his lunch. Last August, I sent his Department a letter, and I am still awaiting an answer. Is that a specimen of the efficiency we may expect from the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Barnes: I was replying to the point submitted by the hon. Member for Hornsey that the responsibility rested upon me to justify the continuance of this regulation, and the hon. Member built his argument largely on the report of a Committee which dealt with the position under a previous Administration.

Mr. Gammans: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that all this is now changed, because we have had a change of Government? Would he agree to submit this scheme to an equally impartial review?

Mr. Barnes: I do not merely think that it is more efficient now; I know it is


more efficient than it used to be. On. this question of empty vehicle running, the average, as I have stated on more than one occasion in reply to questions from hon. Members, works out now at about 20 per cent. Before the war, under private enterprise, it worked out at over 30 per cent., and any hon. Member who is familiar with running any transport, it does not matter whether it is the Road Haulage Organisation, or lorries, or whether it is passenger services or railway trains, will know that it is an inevitable factor of transport services, that there is a percentage of empty running time. But the condition that I have to apply to justify the continuance of this organisation, is whether it is serving the main purpose for which it was originated. Hon. Members opposite have built up their case largely on general observations and general allegations. Very little actual evidence has been submitted here to prove that the organisation is inefficient.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Here is the evidence. I have the time sheets here.

Mr. Barnes: Most of the statements made by hon. Members have been irrelevant to this Order. Most of their statements have been of a general character.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in Order in saying that most of the arguments and statements made on this side of the House have been out of Order?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member can say what he likes.

Mr. Barnes: The real problem that we have to consider here, on this business and its commercial basis, is whether the circumstances which were the direct and immediate consequences of war conditions and which led to the framing of and the passing of these regulations are still in existence. They are very much in existence. I should like to give the House some indication of the volume of important traffic that still has to be moved by this Road Haulage Organisation. With regard to the Ministry of Food, the organisation moves over 7,000 tons of long distance traffic every week; short distance traffic 60,000 tons. For the Ministry of Supply the figures are long distance 12,000 tons, short distance 75,000 tons. Other figures are,Air Ministry, 17,000

tons, long distance; 15,000 tons, short distance; Ministry of Works, long distance 21,000 tons, short distance 41,000 tons. With regard to commercial traffic of this description, there is approximately 140,000 tons of long distance traffic moved each week, and 283,000 tons, short distance, each week. If we take the case of the meat organisation, the traffic is 71,000 tons per week, and livestock 100,000 head per week. The organisation also has to move opencast coal—between 200,000 and 250,000 tons per week. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like to hear these figures, but what I want to do is to make the position perfectly clear. Responsibility rests on the Minister of Transport to move that important public traffic each week. The situation in the traffic industry is that, following the war, there is no free production of motor lorries and vans at the present moment, and any person who wants his goods moved, has not the normal conditions of road transport to which to apply—

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone) rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Sir W. Wakefield: I only wanted to ask for some figures.

Mr. Barnes: This is not a question of asking for additional powers. The agreement which the previous Coalition Government operated was to the effect that this organisation should remain in being, only twelve months after the Japanese war. Hon. Members have raised a completely fallacious issue here tonight. It is not a case, as I say, of the Government endeavouring to secure new powers. Hon. Members are asking us to release this organisation before the time which the previous Government laid down as necessary to carry us over the transitional period. This Debate would be more germane to the issue if it were taking place next August instead of this evening. Having examined the conditions that prevail in the transport industry today, the large needs which have to be fulfilled, and the obligations of the Government in public policy, the need, in my view, for this organisation is still present and I intend to carry it on to the limit.

10.45 p.m.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman is such a genial and friendly Minister that no one wishes to


stand at this Box and attack him, and I would only make this observation on the instances brought forward in this Debate, that, as a great admirer of "Timothy Shy "and "Beachcomber," I have never known them write any tiling more funny than the instances given by my hon. Friends of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I have never, in the whole of my experience, heard such instances of maladministration as those given by my hon. Friends in this Debate about the use of lorries. I only rise for one purpose. The Minister challenged the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway to give instances. He could not have been listening to the speeches because my hon. Friend gave instances. I do not propose to repeat them, because the right hon. Gentleman will be able to read them in Hansard tomorrow— instances of actual time sheets showing how, under this system which the Minister has been trying to bless, the time of the public and public money are wasted, and goods are impeded in their progress.
I have only one other observation to make to the right hon. Gentleman. It would put me out of Order to refer to the Debate which has recently taken place, or to the Debate which is to take place tomorrow; but I would like to ask him to ask the Prime Minister, or any other Minister who is likely to take part in the Debate—which I must not mention—in the near future, to read the instances given by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. He will then realise one of the reasons why production is lagging behind in this country

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): rose in his place, and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Mr. P. Thorneycroft: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have accepted the Closure Motion.

Mr. Thorneycroft: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I rose because I understood that I had a right of reply on the Motion. Surely, I did have the right of reply to the Debate which has just taken place. That is why I rose.

Mr. Speaker: I accepted the Closure Motion before the hon. Gentleman rose. If he had got up earlier, I might have allowed the Debate to continue.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I was on my feet. There was some noise at the time. I could not do more than I did. It would surely be out of Order for me to shout louder than I did. I feel that I ought to be allowed the right to reply.

Mr. Speaker: I have accepted the Motion, and there is nothing more to be done.

Mr. Thorneycroft: May I say this? I did speak to the Government on this. I was not anxious to carry on this Debate until a late hour. We arranged that it should go to 11.15 p.m. I would not have minded 11 o'Clock. In the circumstances I think it is very hard that the Closure should be moved so quickly after the Minister's reply.

Earl Winterton: The Government are always breaking faith; they have no sense of decency.

Mr. Butcher: Mr.Speaker, would it be in Order—

Mr. Speaker: I have already accepted the Closure Motion, and I must now put the Question.

Question put, "That the Question be now put "

MR. COLLINDRIDGE and MR. SIMMONS were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Tellers for the Noes, MR. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly,
 That the Order in Council, dated 20th December, 1945, with respect to Defence Regulations relating to the Control of Transport (S.R. amp; O., 1945, No. 1623), a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower (seated and covered): On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to bring to your notice, with very great respect, that previous to this Debate, I saw the Chief Government Whip, and he said he would allow the Debate to go on until 11.15 p.m. before he moved "That the Question be now put." I do not think the Opposition are being treated fairly when pledges of honour are broken in this way.

Mr. Speaker: I accepted the Motion for the Closure, and when the hon. and gallant


Member says that he does not think the Opposition are being treated fairly, that is a reflection on the chair.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Further to that point of Order, Sir. I wish to say that, in bringing this matter to your attention, I did not mean any reflection on the Chair whatever. I merely wished to point out that the Government moved "That the Question be now put" half

an hour before they said they would do so.

Mr. Speaker: Iappreciate the hon. and gallant Member's explanation, but I am not governed by any arrangement which may be made with hon. Members on this side or that side of the House. I judge the position as I see it from the Chair. I am quite impartial and independent.

The House divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 205.

Division No.93.|
AYES.
10.46 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Comdr A H P


Barlow, Sir J.
Hogg, Hon. Q
Orr-Ewing, I L.


Bennett, Sir P
Hope, Lord J.
Osborne, C.


Birch, Lt.-Col Nigel
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col


Bower, N
Langford-Holt, J.
Scott, Lord W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Corbett, Lt.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McKie, J. H (Galloway)
Touche, G C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
Maclay, Hon. J S.
Turton, R. H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macpherson, Maj, N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield Sir W. W


Dower, Lt.-Col. A (Penrith)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Ward, Hon G. R.


Drayson, Capt. G B.
Marples, Capt A. E.
Wheatley. Col. M. J.


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
York, C.


Fraser, Maj. H. C P. (Stone)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Young, Sir A. S. L (Partick)


Gage, Lt.-Col. C
Mellor, Sir J.



Gammans, Capt. L D
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Grimston. R V.
Mott-Radolyffe, Maj C. E.
Mr. Peter Thorneycreft and


Haughton S G
Neven-Spence Major Sir B.
Mr. Oliver Poole.




NOES.


Adams, W.T.(Hammersmith, south)
Daggar, G.
Herbison, Miss M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Daines, P.
Hobson, C. R


Allen, Scholefiled (Crewe)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Holman, P.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
House, G.


Attewell, H. C.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hoy, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, S O (Merthyr)
Hubbard, T.


Baird, Capt. J.
Deer, G
Hudson, J. H. (Ealling, W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Barstow, P. G.
Delargy, Captain H. J
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dobbie, W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Benson, G.
Donovan, T.
Irving, W. J.


Berry, H.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)


Binns, J.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, J. H (Bolton)


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Keenan, W.


Boardman, H
Fairhurst, F.
Kenyon, C.


Bottomley, A. G.
Farthing, W. J.
King, E. M


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Kinley, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Follick, M.
Lang, G.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Foot, M. M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Lindgren, G. S.


Brown, George (Belper)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lipton, Lt. Col M


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Freeman, Maj J. (Watford)
Logan, D. G.


Burke, W A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Longden, F.


Callaghan, James
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lyne, A. W.


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W
McAdam, W-


Chater, D.
Gilzean, A.
McEntee, V. La T


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Mack, J. D.


Cluse, W. S
Granville, E. (Eye)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Cobb, F. A
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McKinlay, A. S


Coldrick, W.
Grenfell, D R.
McLeavy, F.


Collick, P.
Grierson, E.
MacMillan, M. K.


Collins, V. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Colman, Miss G. M
Hale, Leslie
Mathers, G.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, C. P


Cook, T. F.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Medland, H. M


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Hardy, E. A
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Corlett, Dr.J
Henderson, J (Ardwick).
Mikardo, Ian




Mitchison, maj. G. R.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Walkden, E.


Morley, R.
Shurmer P.
Walker, G. H.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Nally, W.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Watkins, T. E.


Neal, H (Claycross)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Watson, W. M.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Snow, Capt. J W.
Weitzman, D.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Solley, L. J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Sorensen, R. W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oldfiold, W. H.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Sparks, J. A.
Wigg, Colonel G. E.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stamford, W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A B.


Pargiter, G. A.
Steele, T
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B T -
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Strauss, G. R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Pearson, A.
Stross, Dr. B.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Peart, Capt. T. F.
Swingler, Capt. S.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williamson, T.


Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willis, E.


Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. j


Price, M. P.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wise, Major F. J 


Pritt, D. N.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woodburn, A.


Ranger, J.
Thomson, Rt Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thorneyoroft, H. (Manchester, C.)
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G


Rhodes, H.
Tiffany, S.
Zilliacus, K. 


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Timmons, J.



Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Titterington, M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Scollan, T.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Mr. Collindridge and


Shacklelon, Wing-Comdr. E. A. A.
Usborne, Henry
Mr. Simmons


Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'Clock.